5 minute - Management Course
Lesson 1:
A man is getting into the shower just as his wife is finishing up her shower, when the doorbell rings.
The wife quickly wraps herself in a towel andruns downstairs.
When she opens the door, there stands Bob, the next-door neighbour.
Before she says a word, Bob says, 'I'll give you $800to drop that towel.'
After thinking for a moment, the woman dropsher towel and stands naked in front of Bob, aftera few seconds, Bob hands her $800 and leaves.
The woman wraps back up in the towel andgoes back upstairs.
When she gets to the bathroom, her husband asks, 'Who was that?'
'It was Bob the next door neighbour,' she replies.
'Great,' the husband says, 'did he say anything about the $800 he owes me?'
Moral of the story:
If you share critical information pertaining tocredit and risk with your shareholders in time,you may be in a position to prevent avoidable exposure.
Lesson 2:
A priest offered a Nun a lift.
She got in and crossed her legs, forcing hergown to reveal a leg. The priest nearly hadan accident.
After controlling the car, he stealthily slid his hand up her leg..
The nun said, 'Father, remember Psalm 129?'
The priest removed his hand. But, changing gears, he let his hand slide up her leg again.
The nun once again said, 'Father, rememberPsalm 129?'
The priest apologized 'Sorry sister but the fleshis weak.'
Arriving at the convent, the nun sighed heavily and went on her way.
On his arrival at the church, the priest rushed to look up Psalm 129. It said, 'Go forth and seek, further up, you will find glory.'
Moral of the story:
If you are not well informed in your job, you might miss a great opportunity.
Lesson 3:
A sales rep, an administration clerk, and the manager are walking to lunch when they find an antique oil lamp.
They rub it and a Genie comes out.
The Genie says, 'I'll give each of you just one wish.'
'Me first! Me first!' says the admin clerk. 'I wantto be in the Bahamas, driving a speedboat, withouta care in the world.'
Puff! She's gone.
'Me next! Me next!' says the sales rep. 'I want tobe in Hawaii , relaxing on the beach with my personal masseuse, an endless supply of PinaColadas and the love of my life.'
Puff! He's gone.
'OK, you're up,' the Genie says to the manager.
The manager says, 'I want those two back in the office after lunch.'
Moral of the story:
Always let your boss have the first say.
Lesson 4
An eagle was sitting on a tree resting, doing nothing.
A small rabbit saw the eagle and asked him,'Can I also sit like you and do nothing?'
The eagle answered: 'Sure, why not.'
So, the rabbit sat on the ground below the eagle and rested. All of a sudden, a fox appeared, jumped on the rabbit and ate it.
Moral of the story:
To be sitting and doing nothing, you must be sitting very, very high up.
Lesson 5
A person was chatting with a bull.
'I would love to be able to get to the top of that tree' sighed the person, 'but I haven't got the energy.'
'Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?' replied the bull. They're packed with nutrients.'
The person pecked at a lump of dung, and found it actually gave him enough strength to reach the lowest branch of the tree.
The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch.
Finally after a fourth night, the person was proudly perched at the top of the tree..
He was promptly spotted by a farmer, whoshot him out of the tree.
Moral of the story:
Bull Shit might get you to the top, but itwon't keep you there..
Lesson 6
A little bird was flying south for the winter. It was so cold the bird froze and fell to the ground into a large field.
While he was lying there, a cow came by and dropped some dung on him.
As the frozen bird lay there in the pile of cow dung, he began to realize how warm he was.
The dung was actually thawing him out!
He lays there all warm and happy, and soon began to sing for joy.
A passing cat heard the bird singing and came to investigate.
Following the sound, the cat discovered the bird under the pile of cow dung, and
promptly dug him out and ate him.
Morals of the story:
(1) Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy.
(2) Not everyone who gets you out of shit is your
friend.
(3) And when you're in deep shit, it's best to keep
your mouth shut!
Congratulations! !! THIS ENDS YOUR 5 MINUTE MANAGEMENT COURSE
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Lets Know about Some Modern Islamic Scholars and Philosophers
Lets Know about Some Modern Islamic Scholars and Philosophers
Yusuf qrdawi
Imam Shaeed hasan al banna
Nasiruddin al albani
Muhammad abduh
Muhamma rashid rida
muammad al ghazali
Jamal al din al alghani
Yusuf qrdawi
Imam Shaeed hasan al banna
Nasiruddin al albani
Muhammad abduh
Muhamma rashid rida
muammad al ghazali
Jamal al din al alghani
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
RULERS OF MOST MUSLIM COUNTRIES. LACKEYS OF ..............
RULERS OF MOST MUSLIM COUNTRIES.
LACKEYS OF ..............
by Ltheef Farook
Political and social changes in Turkey and their impacts in the region and beyond was the theme of a lecture organised by the website seylanmuslims. com at the Ranmuthu Hotel ,Colpetty on Wednesday 5 August 1009.
The historical aspect was dealt by Latheef Farook, senior journalist and author with more than a quarter century of working experience in the Middle East while senior journalist Ameen Izzadeen spoke about the overall changes now sweeping in Turkey. The lecture was followed by a stimulating question and answer session.
Dealing with the historic aspect and the forces that brought down the Othman Empire Latheef Farook had this to say;
In the little more than 14 century history of Islam and Muslims there have been many important periods such as 89 year rule of Omayyad in Damascus, 508 year Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad described as the Centre of Civilisation when Western Europe was in the dark ages, tenth century Fatimid dynasty in Egypt and North Africa, Muslim rule in Spain, Mughal rule in India and the Turkey’s vast Ottoman Empire.
Though the Abbasid caliphate was described as the Golden period of Islam, the Turkish Empire remains, the most glorious Islamic history .Othman Empire included North Africa covering Egypt that included Syria and Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia. Algeria and beyond. Over a period, they brought the entire Middle East under their rule. So much so Sheriff of Makka voluntarily offered the keys to the Holy City after which Othman Sultans assumed the title of Caliph of Islam.
Expanding towards Europe, they brought Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Cyprus, part of Hungary, Poland and Russia’s Crimean coast under their rule. They even reached the gates of Vienna and Paris. In the process, Mohammed 11 conquered Constantinople, the capital of Christian world and overthrew the Byzantine Empire. Constantinople, called Islambul during Othman rule was changed to Istanbul since the Othman Rule was brought down.
Second half of 16th century was regarded as the peak of the Othman Empire .In one of the unique records of dynastic history the first ten Othman Sultans provided able men of rare intelligence that enabled them to expand and build their empire uninterrupted. However, the subsequent rulers were found incompetent, degenerates and misfits leading to its decline of the empire in the 18th century.
The process of decline of the empire began with Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798. It was also the period when Europe started surging ahead following industrial revolution, technological advancement and the establishment of new colonies that brought them immense wealth. After establishing their colonies in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the two main European colonial powers ,Britain and France, wanted to bring under their control Muslim countries in the Middle East that were under Othman Rule.
By 1900 the Christian West led by Britain and France established upper hand in its political and military struggle against the Muslim world and began manipulating to topple Othman Empire.
It was the time, around early 20th century, Ottoman Empire was reduced to a ragged shadow of its former greatness. From 1889 onwards, opposition by a clandestine group called Young Turks began to intensify against the Ottoman ruler and a coup to overthrow him was crushed in 1896. However, the movement continued .In 1906 revolutionary cells were formed by serving military officers. The first was by Mustafa Kemal in Damascus.
In a related development, during the second half of 19th century, Jews mastered Turkish language, pretended to have embraced Islam and changed their names though they remained faithful to Judaism. They, together with Christians and Alavis, managed to get into key positions in the armed forces and the bureaucracy only to emerge as a state within state.
Meanwhile Jews in Europe mooted the idea of establishing a separate state in Palestine .In 1897 the first World Zionist Jewish Congress in Geneva decided to establish a racist Jewish state in Palestine after driving out the sons of the soil, Palestinians, in violation of all accepted norms and human decency.
They sent delegation after delegation to persuade Othman Sultan to allow them to colonise Palestine with migrant Jews. These requests were turned down by Sultan. Therefore the Jews too needed to topple Othman rule to clear the obstacle to achieve their dream - a Jewish state. Thus, the Zionist Jews got together with Britain and France to work together round the clock to remove Othman Sultan.
As part of this sinister conspiracy Jews, Britain and France manipulated to put the gullible Arabs rulers against Turkey that was already under political turmoil and lost most of its European colonies. At a time when desperate efforts were made to save what was left of the empire Mustafa Kemal was appointed on 19 May 1919, as the inspector general of the ninth army in the Black Sea Coastal Town of Samsun. Nevertheless, he betrayed and turned against Ottoman ruler.
It was under these circumstances that Turkey was proclaimed a Republic on 29 October 1923 with Mustafa Kemal of Young Turks as its President. The Turkish people wanted to retain Ottoman Sultan as constitutional monarch. However, Mustafa Kemal and the Jewish and British forces behind him forced Sultan to flee the country into exile. The virtual power remained in the armed forces while the bureaucracy was dominated by Jews and Alavis.
After almost a century today it was not clear how Mustafa Kemal emerged so powerful to overthrow the Othman Sultan whose soldiers fought valiantly against British invaders and sacrificed their lives. The talk is that Britain and Jews bought over Mustafa Kemal, toppled Othman rule and placed him in power. Up to date the circumstance under which Mustafa Kemal assumed power was not told to the world.
History, as we all know, has been written by winners and not losers. In the case of Mustafa Kemal’s rise to power, so far we only know the version written by the Jews and Britain who were masters in the field of twisting and distorting history to suit their interests as they do even today. There was hardly a book giving the Othman ruler’s side of the story. In fact writing such a book perhaps may be regarded as treason warranting death sentence.
Once in power Mustafa Kemal, backed by his armed forces and bureaucracy ,introduced some of the draconian sets of laws aimed at erasing Othman history and eliminating Islam from Turkish society.
Under the guise of secularism and westernisation, Mustafa Kemal abolished caliphate and Sharia laws despite 99 percent of the population being Muslims. Instead he introduced a new legal code that combined Swiss civil, Italian Penal and the German commercial codes.
Polygamy was declared illegal and civil marriage and divorce were recognised.
The clause in the constitution stating that the religion of the Turkish state is Islam was deleted .Public use of Arabic letters were banned and, in its place introduced Latin based alphabet turning overnight the entire population illiterate. All religious schools, girl’s schools, sacred tombs and several places of worship were closed. A new law requiring Turks to adopt surname was introduced .Pilgrimage to Makka was banned. Sunday was made the official holiday instead of Friday. Hundreds of thousands of religious scholars were massacred.
Thousands of mosques were destroyed. All religious titles such as sheikh or dervish were abolished and Islamic calendar was replaced with the Gregorian calendar.
He changed the role of women in society. As early as 1924 coeducation of girls and boys was introduced, active and passive female suffrage granted, introduced first Miss Turkey contest in 1929 and opened public beaches to women. The deliberate dissolution of Othman Islamic culture was completed with the establishment of Turkish Historical Society to rewrite history, brainwash the people and mislead the world.
Caliphate was abolished on 3 March 1924 and in 1928 state was made officially secular.
Even today, a Muslim woman cannot wear Hijab in the government offices while girls were not allowed to wear Hijab in schools, colleges and universities. They remove the Hijab before entering the offices, schools and other such places and put on when they leave. Government employs preachers and muezzins in all mosques. Religious people played an important role in the society under Othman rule. However, they were eliminated.
A person may be worst Muslim. However, he would never go to this extent to challenge the Almighty Allah by trying wipe out His message- Islam. Only Jews defied Allah. However, this was what Mustafa Kemal, his armed forces and bureaucracy had done and still doing.
Today, 86 years later, comes the answer to this unresolved mystery. Widespread belief in Turkey is that Mustafa Kemal was not a Muslim but a Jew from Romania. People in Turkey confide that Jews and Alavis who constitute less than one percent of the population have controlled, and still control, the military and the bureaucracy. They were never interested in the welfare of the people or the country. Their only interest has been to protect their power base and luxury lifestyle.
As a result today the anti people and anti Muslim military and the bureaucracy remain on one side while the government and the people on the other.
This is the situation in Turkey! What about the plight of other Muslims countries in Middle East?
During the First World War, Britain and France, asked the Arab rulers to support them against the Muslim Ottoman Turks, promising them a kingdom comprising the entire Fertile Crescent, which included present day Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Syria. The Arabs trusted and supported Britain that, after the war, betrayed them. Instead, Britain helped Jews who had not even set foot on Palestinian soil to set up a Jewish state in the Muslim dominated Palestine. They threw the Palestinians into refugee camps in neighbouring countries, where they still live in appalling conditions.
Entering Jerusalem to occupy Palestine on December 9, 1917, Britain’s Sir Edmund Allenby arrogantly declared “THE CRUSADES HAVE ENDED TODAY”. The so-called friend of the Arabs, T. E. Lawrence, widely known as Lawrence of Arabia, visiting Allenby’s headquarters described Allenby’s entry into Jerusalem as the Supreme Moment of the War.
Under the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement signed on May 1916, Britain, France and Russia arrogated themselves the right to inherit the defeated and dismembered Ottoman Empire. They drew the political boundaries with little regard to the Arab wish, divided the Arab world into spheres of British and French influences and installed puppet regimes, almost all of them secular and often at loggerheads with one another, but serving their masters in Britain, Washington and Paris controlled directly and indirectly by powerful and ruthless Jewish lobbies.
Under this scheme Palestine, now turned into Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf countries and even Iraq were brought under Britain while the entire North Africa ranging from Tunisia, Algeria., Libya , Morocco, Lebanon and Syria were handed over to France.
Both Britain and France installed their puppets as rulers who even today serve them obediently. For example in Syria, around 95 percent of the population have been Sunni Muslims while Alavis constitute the remaining four percentage. France carefully screened, selected and placed in power Alavis and even today the armed forces, bureaucracy and the government itself were controlled by the Alavis while the Sunnis remain a voiceless and powerless majority. This explains why Syria killed more than 30,000 Sunnis in Hama and around 30,000 Palestinians in Tel Al Zatar.
In yet another example, Britain and the Zionist Jews concluded a Treaty of Friendship in 1916 with Abdul Aziz Ibn Al Saud, who had established his control over Nejd with the capture of Riyadh early in the last century.
The Ottomans lost control over Makka and Jeddah before losing Madina in 1919. Four days after the abolition of the caliphate on 3 March 1924 in Ankara, Shareef Hussein, who was appointed Shareef of Makka by the Ottoman rulers declared himself the Caliph of Makka on 7 March 1924. The purpose was to turn the caliphate system as the rallying point for Muslims all over the world.
This would have been a historic opportunity to rehabilitate the Muslim world and revive Islam. However, alarmed Britain and the Zionist Jews armed, financed and got Abdel Aziz Ibn Al Saud to attack Shareef Hussein, capture Makka and the surrounding areas and establish the Saudi Wahhabi rule that was not favourable to the system of caliphate.
In return, Al Saud family has been obediently and shamelessly collaborating with Washington, London, Paris and the Zionist Jews in all their conspiracies against Islam and Muslims. This also include the Zionist sponsored and Anglo American implemented wars such as Iraq-Iran war, Gulf war to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait, United States and United Kingdom spearheaded war on Iraq, Afghanistan and the December 2008/January 2008 Israeli carnage in Gaza to cite a few.
Meanwhile Egypt, once in the forefront in the struggle against Zionism, has now become satellite state of Israel. Egypt’s oppressive Dictator Hosni Mubarak has openly supported and assisted all Judeo Christian conspiracies against the Arabs and Muslims. Disgraceful state of affairs was such that there were reports that Israel, Palestine Authority, Egypt. Saudi Arabia and Jordan planned for six long months in Amman the Israel attack on Gaza. Egypt’s Dictator Hosni Mubarak described by the blind Egyptian cleric Sheikh Abdul Rahman as the “obedient dog of the West”, blessed the then Zionist foreign minister in Cairo 48 hours before Israel began its massacre of Palestinians in Gaza.
In Pakistan former dictator turned President Pervez Musharraf slaughtered his own people to please Bush-Blair crusaders. His successor in a sham of a democracy worked out by the Americans Asif Sardari , better known as Mr Ten Percent and was accused of murdering his own brother in law Murtaza Bhutto besides many other crimes, is no better as he is also shedding innocent Pakistani blood to please his masters in the West especially Washington.
Today the Zionist Jews set the agenda and the Arab rulers follow obediently under pressure from their masters in Washington, London and France. This is the shameful state of affairs in the Muslims countries where the rulers constitute some of the most oppressive dictators in the world .Their prime concern has been to protect their power at any cost and not the welfare of the people or the country. This is the tragic plight of the countries in the Middle East.
What about the position of Muslims in the vast Central Asian region? What happened in Turkey happened here too.
While the Jews and Britain were manipulating to bring down Othman rule in Turkey during the early 19th century, there came the Bolshevik revolution in Russia overthrowing Tsar and establishing an atheist communist regime. Prominent leaders of this movement were Karl Marx and Lenin who were all Jews.
As they did in the case of Turkey, the Jewish dominated communist regime in Moscow completely banned all religious activities .Thus the Muslim population in the entire Central Asian region were deprived of their right to practise their religion .In fact Islam was crushed and Muslims were brainwashed to be atheist.
In the aftermath of the collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1990, Christian East bloc countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, Chechoslavakia and Yugoslavia were allowed to go free and even join the European Union and NATO. However, the Central Asian Muslim countries such as Uzbekistan, Khazakistan, Kirgystan, Turkeminsitan Azerbaijan and the like were brutally kept under Russian grip with a façade of an organization called Commonwealth of Independent States; CIS. Thus, they were deprived of the freedom, which was given to the East bloc Christian countries. Chechens Muslims tried for autonomy and their fate is common knowledge. This oppression continues all over central Asia.
This is the plight of what we call the Muslim world that is controlled by London, France, Washington and Russia.
Under the circumstances, how can the innocent Muslims protect themselves from the Judeo-Christian crusade unleashed under the guise of war against terrorism, as it happens in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia and other places, while the puppet rulers in Muslim countries turn blind eyes? In this Jewish sponsored murderous campaign to demonise Islam and justify killing Muslim the Zionist Jews, Christian West, RSS Hindu in India and the communists , have got together while rulers in Muslim countries who have brought the Muslims to the brink of graveyards shamelessly collaborate. Ends
LACKEYS OF ..............
by Ltheef Farook
Political and social changes in Turkey and their impacts in the region and beyond was the theme of a lecture organised by the website seylanmuslims. com at the Ranmuthu Hotel ,Colpetty on Wednesday 5 August 1009.
The historical aspect was dealt by Latheef Farook, senior journalist and author with more than a quarter century of working experience in the Middle East while senior journalist Ameen Izzadeen spoke about the overall changes now sweeping in Turkey. The lecture was followed by a stimulating question and answer session.
Dealing with the historic aspect and the forces that brought down the Othman Empire Latheef Farook had this to say;
In the little more than 14 century history of Islam and Muslims there have been many important periods such as 89 year rule of Omayyad in Damascus, 508 year Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad described as the Centre of Civilisation when Western Europe was in the dark ages, tenth century Fatimid dynasty in Egypt and North Africa, Muslim rule in Spain, Mughal rule in India and the Turkey’s vast Ottoman Empire.
Though the Abbasid caliphate was described as the Golden period of Islam, the Turkish Empire remains, the most glorious Islamic history .Othman Empire included North Africa covering Egypt that included Syria and Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia. Algeria and beyond. Over a period, they brought the entire Middle East under their rule. So much so Sheriff of Makka voluntarily offered the keys to the Holy City after which Othman Sultans assumed the title of Caliph of Islam.
Expanding towards Europe, they brought Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Cyprus, part of Hungary, Poland and Russia’s Crimean coast under their rule. They even reached the gates of Vienna and Paris. In the process, Mohammed 11 conquered Constantinople, the capital of Christian world and overthrew the Byzantine Empire. Constantinople, called Islambul during Othman rule was changed to Istanbul since the Othman Rule was brought down.
Second half of 16th century was regarded as the peak of the Othman Empire .In one of the unique records of dynastic history the first ten Othman Sultans provided able men of rare intelligence that enabled them to expand and build their empire uninterrupted. However, the subsequent rulers were found incompetent, degenerates and misfits leading to its decline of the empire in the 18th century.
The process of decline of the empire began with Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798. It was also the period when Europe started surging ahead following industrial revolution, technological advancement and the establishment of new colonies that brought them immense wealth. After establishing their colonies in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the two main European colonial powers ,Britain and France, wanted to bring under their control Muslim countries in the Middle East that were under Othman Rule.
By 1900 the Christian West led by Britain and France established upper hand in its political and military struggle against the Muslim world and began manipulating to topple Othman Empire.
It was the time, around early 20th century, Ottoman Empire was reduced to a ragged shadow of its former greatness. From 1889 onwards, opposition by a clandestine group called Young Turks began to intensify against the Ottoman ruler and a coup to overthrow him was crushed in 1896. However, the movement continued .In 1906 revolutionary cells were formed by serving military officers. The first was by Mustafa Kemal in Damascus.
In a related development, during the second half of 19th century, Jews mastered Turkish language, pretended to have embraced Islam and changed their names though they remained faithful to Judaism. They, together with Christians and Alavis, managed to get into key positions in the armed forces and the bureaucracy only to emerge as a state within state.
Meanwhile Jews in Europe mooted the idea of establishing a separate state in Palestine .In 1897 the first World Zionist Jewish Congress in Geneva decided to establish a racist Jewish state in Palestine after driving out the sons of the soil, Palestinians, in violation of all accepted norms and human decency.
They sent delegation after delegation to persuade Othman Sultan to allow them to colonise Palestine with migrant Jews. These requests were turned down by Sultan. Therefore the Jews too needed to topple Othman rule to clear the obstacle to achieve their dream - a Jewish state. Thus, the Zionist Jews got together with Britain and France to work together round the clock to remove Othman Sultan.
As part of this sinister conspiracy Jews, Britain and France manipulated to put the gullible Arabs rulers against Turkey that was already under political turmoil and lost most of its European colonies. At a time when desperate efforts were made to save what was left of the empire Mustafa Kemal was appointed on 19 May 1919, as the inspector general of the ninth army in the Black Sea Coastal Town of Samsun. Nevertheless, he betrayed and turned against Ottoman ruler.
It was under these circumstances that Turkey was proclaimed a Republic on 29 October 1923 with Mustafa Kemal of Young Turks as its President. The Turkish people wanted to retain Ottoman Sultan as constitutional monarch. However, Mustafa Kemal and the Jewish and British forces behind him forced Sultan to flee the country into exile. The virtual power remained in the armed forces while the bureaucracy was dominated by Jews and Alavis.
After almost a century today it was not clear how Mustafa Kemal emerged so powerful to overthrow the Othman Sultan whose soldiers fought valiantly against British invaders and sacrificed their lives. The talk is that Britain and Jews bought over Mustafa Kemal, toppled Othman rule and placed him in power. Up to date the circumstance under which Mustafa Kemal assumed power was not told to the world.
History, as we all know, has been written by winners and not losers. In the case of Mustafa Kemal’s rise to power, so far we only know the version written by the Jews and Britain who were masters in the field of twisting and distorting history to suit their interests as they do even today. There was hardly a book giving the Othman ruler’s side of the story. In fact writing such a book perhaps may be regarded as treason warranting death sentence.
Once in power Mustafa Kemal, backed by his armed forces and bureaucracy ,introduced some of the draconian sets of laws aimed at erasing Othman history and eliminating Islam from Turkish society.
Under the guise of secularism and westernisation, Mustafa Kemal abolished caliphate and Sharia laws despite 99 percent of the population being Muslims. Instead he introduced a new legal code that combined Swiss civil, Italian Penal and the German commercial codes.
Polygamy was declared illegal and civil marriage and divorce were recognised.
The clause in the constitution stating that the religion of the Turkish state is Islam was deleted .Public use of Arabic letters were banned and, in its place introduced Latin based alphabet turning overnight the entire population illiterate. All religious schools, girl’s schools, sacred tombs and several places of worship were closed. A new law requiring Turks to adopt surname was introduced .Pilgrimage to Makka was banned. Sunday was made the official holiday instead of Friday. Hundreds of thousands of religious scholars were massacred.
Thousands of mosques were destroyed. All religious titles such as sheikh or dervish were abolished and Islamic calendar was replaced with the Gregorian calendar.
He changed the role of women in society. As early as 1924 coeducation of girls and boys was introduced, active and passive female suffrage granted, introduced first Miss Turkey contest in 1929 and opened public beaches to women. The deliberate dissolution of Othman Islamic culture was completed with the establishment of Turkish Historical Society to rewrite history, brainwash the people and mislead the world.
Caliphate was abolished on 3 March 1924 and in 1928 state was made officially secular.
Even today, a Muslim woman cannot wear Hijab in the government offices while girls were not allowed to wear Hijab in schools, colleges and universities. They remove the Hijab before entering the offices, schools and other such places and put on when they leave. Government employs preachers and muezzins in all mosques. Religious people played an important role in the society under Othman rule. However, they were eliminated.
A person may be worst Muslim. However, he would never go to this extent to challenge the Almighty Allah by trying wipe out His message- Islam. Only Jews defied Allah. However, this was what Mustafa Kemal, his armed forces and bureaucracy had done and still doing.
Today, 86 years later, comes the answer to this unresolved mystery. Widespread belief in Turkey is that Mustafa Kemal was not a Muslim but a Jew from Romania. People in Turkey confide that Jews and Alavis who constitute less than one percent of the population have controlled, and still control, the military and the bureaucracy. They were never interested in the welfare of the people or the country. Their only interest has been to protect their power base and luxury lifestyle.
As a result today the anti people and anti Muslim military and the bureaucracy remain on one side while the government and the people on the other.
This is the situation in Turkey! What about the plight of other Muslims countries in Middle East?
During the First World War, Britain and France, asked the Arab rulers to support them against the Muslim Ottoman Turks, promising them a kingdom comprising the entire Fertile Crescent, which included present day Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Syria. The Arabs trusted and supported Britain that, after the war, betrayed them. Instead, Britain helped Jews who had not even set foot on Palestinian soil to set up a Jewish state in the Muslim dominated Palestine. They threw the Palestinians into refugee camps in neighbouring countries, where they still live in appalling conditions.
Entering Jerusalem to occupy Palestine on December 9, 1917, Britain’s Sir Edmund Allenby arrogantly declared “THE CRUSADES HAVE ENDED TODAY”. The so-called friend of the Arabs, T. E. Lawrence, widely known as Lawrence of Arabia, visiting Allenby’s headquarters described Allenby’s entry into Jerusalem as the Supreme Moment of the War.
Under the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement signed on May 1916, Britain, France and Russia arrogated themselves the right to inherit the defeated and dismembered Ottoman Empire. They drew the political boundaries with little regard to the Arab wish, divided the Arab world into spheres of British and French influences and installed puppet regimes, almost all of them secular and often at loggerheads with one another, but serving their masters in Britain, Washington and Paris controlled directly and indirectly by powerful and ruthless Jewish lobbies.
Under this scheme Palestine, now turned into Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf countries and even Iraq were brought under Britain while the entire North Africa ranging from Tunisia, Algeria., Libya , Morocco, Lebanon and Syria were handed over to France.
Both Britain and France installed their puppets as rulers who even today serve them obediently. For example in Syria, around 95 percent of the population have been Sunni Muslims while Alavis constitute the remaining four percentage. France carefully screened, selected and placed in power Alavis and even today the armed forces, bureaucracy and the government itself were controlled by the Alavis while the Sunnis remain a voiceless and powerless majority. This explains why Syria killed more than 30,000 Sunnis in Hama and around 30,000 Palestinians in Tel Al Zatar.
In yet another example, Britain and the Zionist Jews concluded a Treaty of Friendship in 1916 with Abdul Aziz Ibn Al Saud, who had established his control over Nejd with the capture of Riyadh early in the last century.
The Ottomans lost control over Makka and Jeddah before losing Madina in 1919. Four days after the abolition of the caliphate on 3 March 1924 in Ankara, Shareef Hussein, who was appointed Shareef of Makka by the Ottoman rulers declared himself the Caliph of Makka on 7 March 1924. The purpose was to turn the caliphate system as the rallying point for Muslims all over the world.
This would have been a historic opportunity to rehabilitate the Muslim world and revive Islam. However, alarmed Britain and the Zionist Jews armed, financed and got Abdel Aziz Ibn Al Saud to attack Shareef Hussein, capture Makka and the surrounding areas and establish the Saudi Wahhabi rule that was not favourable to the system of caliphate.
In return, Al Saud family has been obediently and shamelessly collaborating with Washington, London, Paris and the Zionist Jews in all their conspiracies against Islam and Muslims. This also include the Zionist sponsored and Anglo American implemented wars such as Iraq-Iran war, Gulf war to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait, United States and United Kingdom spearheaded war on Iraq, Afghanistan and the December 2008/January 2008 Israeli carnage in Gaza to cite a few.
Meanwhile Egypt, once in the forefront in the struggle against Zionism, has now become satellite state of Israel. Egypt’s oppressive Dictator Hosni Mubarak has openly supported and assisted all Judeo Christian conspiracies against the Arabs and Muslims. Disgraceful state of affairs was such that there were reports that Israel, Palestine Authority, Egypt. Saudi Arabia and Jordan planned for six long months in Amman the Israel attack on Gaza. Egypt’s Dictator Hosni Mubarak described by the blind Egyptian cleric Sheikh Abdul Rahman as the “obedient dog of the West”, blessed the then Zionist foreign minister in Cairo 48 hours before Israel began its massacre of Palestinians in Gaza.
In Pakistan former dictator turned President Pervez Musharraf slaughtered his own people to please Bush-Blair crusaders. His successor in a sham of a democracy worked out by the Americans Asif Sardari , better known as Mr Ten Percent and was accused of murdering his own brother in law Murtaza Bhutto besides many other crimes, is no better as he is also shedding innocent Pakistani blood to please his masters in the West especially Washington.
Today the Zionist Jews set the agenda and the Arab rulers follow obediently under pressure from their masters in Washington, London and France. This is the shameful state of affairs in the Muslims countries where the rulers constitute some of the most oppressive dictators in the world .Their prime concern has been to protect their power at any cost and not the welfare of the people or the country. This is the tragic plight of the countries in the Middle East.
What about the position of Muslims in the vast Central Asian region? What happened in Turkey happened here too.
While the Jews and Britain were manipulating to bring down Othman rule in Turkey during the early 19th century, there came the Bolshevik revolution in Russia overthrowing Tsar and establishing an atheist communist regime. Prominent leaders of this movement were Karl Marx and Lenin who were all Jews.
As they did in the case of Turkey, the Jewish dominated communist regime in Moscow completely banned all religious activities .Thus the Muslim population in the entire Central Asian region were deprived of their right to practise their religion .In fact Islam was crushed and Muslims were brainwashed to be atheist.
In the aftermath of the collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1990, Christian East bloc countries such as Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, Chechoslavakia and Yugoslavia were allowed to go free and even join the European Union and NATO. However, the Central Asian Muslim countries such as Uzbekistan, Khazakistan, Kirgystan, Turkeminsitan Azerbaijan and the like were brutally kept under Russian grip with a façade of an organization called Commonwealth of Independent States; CIS. Thus, they were deprived of the freedom, which was given to the East bloc Christian countries. Chechens Muslims tried for autonomy and their fate is common knowledge. This oppression continues all over central Asia.
This is the plight of what we call the Muslim world that is controlled by London, France, Washington and Russia.
Under the circumstances, how can the innocent Muslims protect themselves from the Judeo-Christian crusade unleashed under the guise of war against terrorism, as it happens in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia and other places, while the puppet rulers in Muslim countries turn blind eyes? In this Jewish sponsored murderous campaign to demonise Islam and justify killing Muslim the Zionist Jews, Christian West, RSS Hindu in India and the communists , have got together while rulers in Muslim countries who have brought the Muslims to the brink of graveyards shamelessly collaborate. Ends
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
India Vs Pakistan
Written by a Pakistani journalist about India
Here's what is happening in India :
The two Ambani brothers can buy 100 percent of every company listed on the Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE) and would still be left with $30 billion to spare. The four richest Indians can buy up all goods and services produced over a year by 169 million Pakistanis and still be left with $60 billion to spare. The four richest Indians are now richer than the forty richest Chinese.
In November, Bombay Stock Exchange's benchmark Sensex flirted with 20,000 points. As a consequence, Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Industries became a $100 billion company (the entire KSE is capitalized at $65 billion). Mukesh owns 48 percent of Reliance.
In November, comes Neeta's birthday. Neeta turned forty-four three weeks ago. Look what she got from her husband as her birthday present: A sixty-million dollar jet with a custom fitted master bedroom, bathroom with mood lighting, a sky bar, entertainment cabins, satellite television, wireless communication and a separate cabin with game consoles. Neeta is Mukesh Ambani's wife, and Mukesh is not India 's richest but the second richest.
Mukesh is now building his new home, Residence Antillia (after a mythical, phantom island somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean ). At a cost of $1 billion this would be the most expensive home on the face of the planet. At 173 meters tall Mukesh's new family residence, for a family of six, will be the equivalent of a 60-storeyed building.. The first six floors are reserved for parking. The seventh floor is for car servicing and maintenance. The eighth floor houses a mini-theatre. Then there's a health club, a gym and a swimming pool. Two floors are reserved for Ambani family's guests. Four floors above the guest
floors are family floors all with a superb view of the Arabian Sea . On top of everything are three helipads. A staff of 600 is expected to care for the family and their family home.
In 2004, India became the 3rd most attractive foreign direct investment destination. Pakistan wasn't even in the top 25 countries.
In 2004, the United Nations, the representative body of 192 sovereign member states, had requested the Election Commission of India to assist the UN in the holding elections in Al Jumhuriyah al Iraqiyah and Dowlat-e Islami-ye Afghanistan . Why the Election Commission of India and not the Election Commission of Pakistan? After all, Islamabad is closer to Kabul than is Delhi .
For the record:
12 percent of all American scientists are of Indian origin;
38 percent of doctors in America are Indian;
36 percent of NASA scientists are Indians;
34 percent of Microsoft employees are Indians;
28 percent of IBM employees are Indians.
Sabeer Bhatia created and founded Hotmail.
Sun Microsystems was founded by Vinod Khosla..
The Intel Pentium processor, that runs 90 percent of all computers, was fathered by Vinod Dham.
Rajiv Gupta co-invented Hewlett Packard's E-speak project.
Four out of ten Silicon Valley start-ups are run by Indians.
Bollywood produces 800 movies per year
six Indian ladies have won Miss Universe/Miss World titles over the past 10 years.
Azim Premji, the richest Muslim entrepreneur on the face of the planet, was born in Bombay and now lives in Bangalore .
India now has more than three dozen billionaires; Pakistan has none (not a single dollar billionaire) .
The other amazing aspect is the rapid pace at which India is creating wealth. In 2002, Dhirubhai Ambani, Mukesh and Anil Ambani's father, left his two sons a fortune worth $2.8 billion. In 2007, their combined wealth stood at $94 billion.. On 29 October 2007, as a result of the stock market rally and the appreciation of the Indian rupee, Mukesh became the richest person in the world, with net worth climbing to US$63.2 billion (Bill Gates, the richest American, stands at around $56 billion).
Indians and Pakistanis have the same Y-chromosome haploid group. We have the same genetic sequence and the same genetic marker (namely: M124). We have the same DNA molecule, the same DNA sequence. Our culture, our traditions and our cuisine are all the same. We watch the same movies and sing the same songs. What is it that Indians have and we don't?
INDIANS ELECT THEIR LEADERS
And also to mention: They think of construction of own nation, unlike nations who are just concerned with destruction of others.
Here's what is happening in India :
The two Ambani brothers can buy 100 percent of every company listed on the Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE) and would still be left with $30 billion to spare. The four richest Indians can buy up all goods and services produced over a year by 169 million Pakistanis and still be left with $60 billion to spare. The four richest Indians are now richer than the forty richest Chinese.
In November, Bombay Stock Exchange's benchmark Sensex flirted with 20,000 points. As a consequence, Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Industries became a $100 billion company (the entire KSE is capitalized at $65 billion). Mukesh owns 48 percent of Reliance.
In November, comes Neeta's birthday. Neeta turned forty-four three weeks ago. Look what she got from her husband as her birthday present: A sixty-million dollar jet with a custom fitted master bedroom, bathroom with mood lighting, a sky bar, entertainment cabins, satellite television, wireless communication and a separate cabin with game consoles. Neeta is Mukesh Ambani's wife, and Mukesh is not India 's richest but the second richest.
Mukesh is now building his new home, Residence Antillia (after a mythical, phantom island somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean ). At a cost of $1 billion this would be the most expensive home on the face of the planet. At 173 meters tall Mukesh's new family residence, for a family of six, will be the equivalent of a 60-storeyed building.. The first six floors are reserved for parking. The seventh floor is for car servicing and maintenance. The eighth floor houses a mini-theatre. Then there's a health club, a gym and a swimming pool. Two floors are reserved for Ambani family's guests. Four floors above the guest
floors are family floors all with a superb view of the Arabian Sea . On top of everything are three helipads. A staff of 600 is expected to care for the family and their family home.
In 2004, India became the 3rd most attractive foreign direct investment destination. Pakistan wasn't even in the top 25 countries.
In 2004, the United Nations, the representative body of 192 sovereign member states, had requested the Election Commission of India to assist the UN in the holding elections in Al Jumhuriyah al Iraqiyah and Dowlat-e Islami-ye Afghanistan . Why the Election Commission of India and not the Election Commission of Pakistan? After all, Islamabad is closer to Kabul than is Delhi .
For the record:
12 percent of all American scientists are of Indian origin;
38 percent of doctors in America are Indian;
36 percent of NASA scientists are Indians;
34 percent of Microsoft employees are Indians;
28 percent of IBM employees are Indians.
Sabeer Bhatia created and founded Hotmail.
Sun Microsystems was founded by Vinod Khosla..
The Intel Pentium processor, that runs 90 percent of all computers, was fathered by Vinod Dham.
Rajiv Gupta co-invented Hewlett Packard's E-speak project.
Four out of ten Silicon Valley start-ups are run by Indians.
Bollywood produces 800 movies per year
six Indian ladies have won Miss Universe/Miss World titles over the past 10 years.
Azim Premji, the richest Muslim entrepreneur on the face of the planet, was born in Bombay and now lives in Bangalore .
India now has more than three dozen billionaires; Pakistan has none (not a single dollar billionaire) .
The other amazing aspect is the rapid pace at which India is creating wealth. In 2002, Dhirubhai Ambani, Mukesh and Anil Ambani's father, left his two sons a fortune worth $2.8 billion. In 2007, their combined wealth stood at $94 billion.. On 29 October 2007, as a result of the stock market rally and the appreciation of the Indian rupee, Mukesh became the richest person in the world, with net worth climbing to US$63.2 billion (Bill Gates, the richest American, stands at around $56 billion).
Indians and Pakistanis have the same Y-chromosome haploid group. We have the same genetic sequence and the same genetic marker (namely: M124). We have the same DNA molecule, the same DNA sequence. Our culture, our traditions and our cuisine are all the same. We watch the same movies and sing the same songs. What is it that Indians have and we don't?
INDIANS ELECT THEIR LEADERS
And also to mention: They think of construction of own nation, unlike nations who are just concerned with destruction of others.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Turkey’s Secularism - Western Conspiracy against Islam and Muslims
Turkey’s Secularism - Western Conspiracy against Islam and Muslims
By Latheef Farook
Turkey has been known for its great Ottoman empire that covered vast areas of Middle East, North Africa, Balkan and even reached deep into European continent. Its great contribution in many fields for more than six centuries has been common knowledge. However in the aftermath of the World War 1 European colonial powers led by Jews and Britain toppled the Ottoman rule and installed in 1923 a mysterious pro Western and extremely anti Muslim military regime in this country where Islam and Islamic culture have flourished.
The irony is that most Arab rulers, bribed by Jews and Britain, supported them in their conspiracy to topple the Ottoman Empire that was on the decline. This also included the Saudi Royal family which was also installed in power in and around Riyadh by the Jews and the British early last century.
Today, after nine decades, Turkey is passing through its most crucial stage in its struggle to liberate itself from the clutches of the military and regain its political, religious and cultural identity and march ahead with dignity.
Since 1923, Turkey has remained under the ruthless military dominated republic that elected mysterious Mustafa Kemal Ataturk as the president.
Knowledgeable people of all walks of life both in Istanbul and in Ankara, who insisted on anonymity in view of the repression, explained during my recent visit there, that the armed forces and the bureaucracy that they carefully screened and built up remain staunchly secular. Throughout the past nine decades, the military and the bureaucracy have not been not interested in the welfare of the people or the country. Instead, all what they wanted was to retain power at any cost, amass wealth and enjoy the best of comforts.
Explaining the circumstance that led to the toppling of Ottoman rule, they pointed out that during the early last century the Zionist Jews who had decided to set up a Jewish state in Palestine, then an Ottoman province, have unleashed their campaign in full swing to achieve this goal. Time and again, they tried to persuade Ottoman ruler to permit them to colonize Jews in Palestine and late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir too approached the Sultan Abdul Hamid II. However, Sultan refused knowing the conspiratorial nature of Jews as proved after the State of Israel came into being.
Thus the Zionist Jews’ need to topple the Ottoman rule.
Britain, plotting and conspiring to destabilize the Muslim countries during the past few centuries, had its own agenda to exploit a weakened Muslim Turkey which aligned with the defeated Germany during World War 1 .Thus Jews and Britain, backed by other colonial powers, got together and brought down the Ottoman rule .They later divided Ottoman’s colonies in the Middle East as if they were dividing their inherited ancestral property. These powers also installed puppet Arab regimes in their newly carved out states.
Toppling of the Ottoman rule helped Zionist Jews achieve their target. Palestine was brought under British mandatory power that in turn helped colonize Palestine with Jews, drive out the sons and daughters, Palestinians, and thereby establish the state of Israel that remains the sole source of instability in the entire Middle East today
Though freedom of expression was completely suppressed under the military regime , the people in general seems to be very well informed of what goes on within the barracks. From historians, political observers, scholars, journalists and all others explained, of course in secrecy, that the Ottoman rule did not collapse, but was toppled under a conspiracy engineered by the British and the Jews.
They explained that during Ottoman rule a small minority of Jews, now around 16,000, Christians and others especially Alavis who belonged to a Shiite sect, have mastered Turkish language, won the confidence of the Ottoman rulers and managed to get into powerful positions both in the armed forces and administration. Some of them claimed to have embraced Islam in public though they remained faithful to their own religions in secret. They were called “dönme”. One among them was Mustafa Kemal Ataturk-some believe a Jew from Romania, who was a military commander under Ottoman ruler who sent him to Anatolia to fight against the British invaders. Instead of fighting, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was won over by the British. He turned against the Ottoman Sultan under a carefully prepared British conspiracy and joined the invaders that led to the final toppling of six centuries of glorious Ottoman Empire regarded as one of the golden periods of Islamic history.
Once Ottoman rule was toppled the Zionist Jews and Britain placed in high positions these ‘dönme’s in the armed forces and bureaucracy and entrusted the task of separating Islam from Turkish Muslims under the guise of secularism.
The military regime introduced sweeping changes under this well thought out plan aimed at creating a secular society. They annulled Islamic caliphate rule, changed the alphabet of Turkish language from Arabic script to Latin and made the entire population illiterate overnight, placed secularism into the constitution, banned traditional Islamic dress code, introduced western dress, changed Islamic Sharia laws, executed thousands of Islamic religious scholars, banned wearing of head scarf for Muslim women in all government establishments including universities, schools and other such institutions.
Above all the military regime also changed the syllabi in the schools and universities demonizing Ottoman rule to brainwash the younger generation. Thus, the military virtually banned everything related to Islam in its drive to create a western society of wining, dining, gambling, club going and free sex in this deep-rooted Islamic country.
The people in general consider this from the very inception as sheer madness. Will any Muslim military, in its proper sense, do this? Such disastrous policy has been the agenda of only Jews and European colonial powers.
This is the reason why the Turkish people always suspected the military and today their suspicions were proved right with many top officials in the armed forces and bureaucracy turned out to be Jews and Alavis. Only recently, a top retired army officer was found to be a Jew but has been pretending as a Muslims throughout his career. So much the army even entered into an agreement with Israel without consulting the elected parliament.
In the midst, a sham of multi party elections was introduced for the first time in July 1946, to hoodwink both the people and the world alike though the military remained the state within a state, described as Deep State, wielding complete control.
Under the circumstances, every time democratic forces began gathering momentum the military found some pretext to crush them ruthlessly. It happened on 27 May 1960 when the civilian government was toppled in the first military coup and the Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and two other ministers were hanged following the trial in a military court.
Eleven years later, once again democratic and Islamic forces began gathering momentum .This time the armed forces issued a memorandum and overthrew the government on 12 March 1971 in what was regarded as the second military coup against the people.
Once again, political parties were suspended and the democratically elected government was toppled on 12 September 1980 in third military coup. However, the first ever election held on 6 November 1983 brought Turgut Ozal to power in a landslide victory when the liberalization began recording remarkable progress covering almost every possible field. Suppressed Muslims began to breathe fresh air of religious freedom.
In the popular wave, Turgut Ozal became Turkey’s eight president on 9 November 1989. However, four years later to the shock and dismay of people he died of heart attack ,though the common belief is that he was poisoned in view his growing popularity and the growth of democratic forces.
The situation has changed altogether today as the country is openly polarized- military and the bureaucracy on one side and the government and the people on the other. The rapidly changing political scenario is demonstrated clearly in the boldness of the media which began highlighting the true face of the military and the bureaucracy.
Even as recent as five years ago speaking a word asserting democratic rights, leave alone challenging the military rule, was inviting not trouble but disaster. That was the degree of repression. However, today Turks have become bold in expressing their views and exposing the hostile forces.
The latest being a conspiracy hatched by the military to plant bombs in the premises of Fethullah Gulen led Islamic movement ,accuse them of plotting to overthrow the military and crush the rising faith-based movement. Details of this military plot have been disclosed in the Turkish media on a daily basis showing the true face` of the armed forces.
Almost all, from professionals, intellectuals, religious scholars, students and even the average person now openly demand the need to confine the military back to the barrack and allow the people to rule themselves. They want the armed forces to be under the control of the elected government. They do not want the military to remain as the Sword of Damocles over the heads of democratic and Islamic forces.
The so-called Anglo American led Western champions of human rights and democracy never raised their voices against the suppression of democratic freedom in Turkey, because the military regime’s agenda suited the Western anti Islamic agenda that today turned the world into a killing field under the guise of fighting a so-called war on terrorism.
By Latheef Farook
Turkey has been known for its great Ottoman empire that covered vast areas of Middle East, North Africa, Balkan and even reached deep into European continent. Its great contribution in many fields for more than six centuries has been common knowledge. However in the aftermath of the World War 1 European colonial powers led by Jews and Britain toppled the Ottoman rule and installed in 1923 a mysterious pro Western and extremely anti Muslim military regime in this country where Islam and Islamic culture have flourished.
The irony is that most Arab rulers, bribed by Jews and Britain, supported them in their conspiracy to topple the Ottoman Empire that was on the decline. This also included the Saudi Royal family which was also installed in power in and around Riyadh by the Jews and the British early last century.
Today, after nine decades, Turkey is passing through its most crucial stage in its struggle to liberate itself from the clutches of the military and regain its political, religious and cultural identity and march ahead with dignity.
Since 1923, Turkey has remained under the ruthless military dominated republic that elected mysterious Mustafa Kemal Ataturk as the president.
Knowledgeable people of all walks of life both in Istanbul and in Ankara, who insisted on anonymity in view of the repression, explained during my recent visit there, that the armed forces and the bureaucracy that they carefully screened and built up remain staunchly secular. Throughout the past nine decades, the military and the bureaucracy have not been not interested in the welfare of the people or the country. Instead, all what they wanted was to retain power at any cost, amass wealth and enjoy the best of comforts.
Explaining the circumstance that led to the toppling of Ottoman rule, they pointed out that during the early last century the Zionist Jews who had decided to set up a Jewish state in Palestine, then an Ottoman province, have unleashed their campaign in full swing to achieve this goal. Time and again, they tried to persuade Ottoman ruler to permit them to colonize Jews in Palestine and late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir too approached the Sultan Abdul Hamid II. However, Sultan refused knowing the conspiratorial nature of Jews as proved after the State of Israel came into being.
Thus the Zionist Jews’ need to topple the Ottoman rule.
Britain, plotting and conspiring to destabilize the Muslim countries during the past few centuries, had its own agenda to exploit a weakened Muslim Turkey which aligned with the defeated Germany during World War 1 .Thus Jews and Britain, backed by other colonial powers, got together and brought down the Ottoman rule .They later divided Ottoman’s colonies in the Middle East as if they were dividing their inherited ancestral property. These powers also installed puppet Arab regimes in their newly carved out states.
Toppling of the Ottoman rule helped Zionist Jews achieve their target. Palestine was brought under British mandatory power that in turn helped colonize Palestine with Jews, drive out the sons and daughters, Palestinians, and thereby establish the state of Israel that remains the sole source of instability in the entire Middle East today
Though freedom of expression was completely suppressed under the military regime , the people in general seems to be very well informed of what goes on within the barracks. From historians, political observers, scholars, journalists and all others explained, of course in secrecy, that the Ottoman rule did not collapse, but was toppled under a conspiracy engineered by the British and the Jews.
They explained that during Ottoman rule a small minority of Jews, now around 16,000, Christians and others especially Alavis who belonged to a Shiite sect, have mastered Turkish language, won the confidence of the Ottoman rulers and managed to get into powerful positions both in the armed forces and administration. Some of them claimed to have embraced Islam in public though they remained faithful to their own religions in secret. They were called “dönme”. One among them was Mustafa Kemal Ataturk-some believe a Jew from Romania, who was a military commander under Ottoman ruler who sent him to Anatolia to fight against the British invaders. Instead of fighting, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was won over by the British. He turned against the Ottoman Sultan under a carefully prepared British conspiracy and joined the invaders that led to the final toppling of six centuries of glorious Ottoman Empire regarded as one of the golden periods of Islamic history.
Once Ottoman rule was toppled the Zionist Jews and Britain placed in high positions these ‘dönme’s in the armed forces and bureaucracy and entrusted the task of separating Islam from Turkish Muslims under the guise of secularism.
The military regime introduced sweeping changes under this well thought out plan aimed at creating a secular society. They annulled Islamic caliphate rule, changed the alphabet of Turkish language from Arabic script to Latin and made the entire population illiterate overnight, placed secularism into the constitution, banned traditional Islamic dress code, introduced western dress, changed Islamic Sharia laws, executed thousands of Islamic religious scholars, banned wearing of head scarf for Muslim women in all government establishments including universities, schools and other such institutions.
Above all the military regime also changed the syllabi in the schools and universities demonizing Ottoman rule to brainwash the younger generation. Thus, the military virtually banned everything related to Islam in its drive to create a western society of wining, dining, gambling, club going and free sex in this deep-rooted Islamic country.
The people in general consider this from the very inception as sheer madness. Will any Muslim military, in its proper sense, do this? Such disastrous policy has been the agenda of only Jews and European colonial powers.
This is the reason why the Turkish people always suspected the military and today their suspicions were proved right with many top officials in the armed forces and bureaucracy turned out to be Jews and Alavis. Only recently, a top retired army officer was found to be a Jew but has been pretending as a Muslims throughout his career. So much the army even entered into an agreement with Israel without consulting the elected parliament.
In the midst, a sham of multi party elections was introduced for the first time in July 1946, to hoodwink both the people and the world alike though the military remained the state within a state, described as Deep State, wielding complete control.
Under the circumstances, every time democratic forces began gathering momentum the military found some pretext to crush them ruthlessly. It happened on 27 May 1960 when the civilian government was toppled in the first military coup and the Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and two other ministers were hanged following the trial in a military court.
Eleven years later, once again democratic and Islamic forces began gathering momentum .This time the armed forces issued a memorandum and overthrew the government on 12 March 1971 in what was regarded as the second military coup against the people.
Once again, political parties were suspended and the democratically elected government was toppled on 12 September 1980 in third military coup. However, the first ever election held on 6 November 1983 brought Turgut Ozal to power in a landslide victory when the liberalization began recording remarkable progress covering almost every possible field. Suppressed Muslims began to breathe fresh air of religious freedom.
In the popular wave, Turgut Ozal became Turkey’s eight president on 9 November 1989. However, four years later to the shock and dismay of people he died of heart attack ,though the common belief is that he was poisoned in view his growing popularity and the growth of democratic forces.
The situation has changed altogether today as the country is openly polarized- military and the bureaucracy on one side and the government and the people on the other. The rapidly changing political scenario is demonstrated clearly in the boldness of the media which began highlighting the true face of the military and the bureaucracy.
Even as recent as five years ago speaking a word asserting democratic rights, leave alone challenging the military rule, was inviting not trouble but disaster. That was the degree of repression. However, today Turks have become bold in expressing their views and exposing the hostile forces.
The latest being a conspiracy hatched by the military to plant bombs in the premises of Fethullah Gulen led Islamic movement ,accuse them of plotting to overthrow the military and crush the rising faith-based movement. Details of this military plot have been disclosed in the Turkish media on a daily basis showing the true face` of the armed forces.
Almost all, from professionals, intellectuals, religious scholars, students and even the average person now openly demand the need to confine the military back to the barrack and allow the people to rule themselves. They want the armed forces to be under the control of the elected government. They do not want the military to remain as the Sword of Damocles over the heads of democratic and Islamic forces.
The so-called Anglo American led Western champions of human rights and democracy never raised their voices against the suppression of democratic freedom in Turkey, because the military regime’s agenda suited the Western anti Islamic agenda that today turned the world into a killing field under the guise of fighting a so-called war on terrorism.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Islamic Spirituality: the forgotten revolution © Abdal-Hakim Murad THE POVERTY OF FANATICISM
Islamic Spirituality: the forgotten revolution
© Abdal-Hakim Murad
THE POVERTY OF FANATICISM
'Blood is no argument', as Shakespeare observed. Sadly, Muslim ranks are today swollen with those who disagree. The World Trade Centre, yesterday's symbol of global finance, has today become a monument to the failure of global Islam to control those who believe that the West can be bullied into changing its wayward ways towards the East. There is no real excuse to hand. It is simply not enough to clamour, as many have done, about 'chickens coming home to roost', and to protest that Washington's acquiescence in Israeli policies of ethnic cleansing is the inevitable generator of such hate. It is of course true - as Shabbir Akhtar has noted - that powerlessness can corrupt as insistently as does power. But to comprehend is not to sanction or even to empathize. To take innocent life to achieve a goal is the hallmark of the most extreme secular utilitarian ethic, and stands at the opposite pole of the absolute moral constraints required by religion.
There was a time, not long ago, when the 'ultras' were few, forming only a tiny wart on the face of the worldwide attempt to revivify Islam. Sadly, we can no longer enjoy the luxury of ignoring them. The extreme has broadened, and the middle ground, giving way, is everywhere dislocated and confused. And this enfeeblement of the middle ground, was what was enjoined by the Prophetic example, is in turn accelerated by the opprobrium which the extremists bring not simply upon themselves, but upon committed Muslims everywhere. For here, as elsewhere, the preferences of the media work firmly against us. David Koresh could broadcast his fringe Biblical message from Ranch Apocalypse without the image of Christianity, or even its Adventist wing, being in any way besmirched. But when a fringe Islamic group bombs Swedish tourists in Cairo, the muck is instantly spread over 'militant Muslims' everywhere.
If these things go on, the Islamic movement will cease to form an authentic summons to cultural and spiritual renewal, and will exist as little more than a splintered array of maniacal factions. The prospect of such an appalling and humiliating end to the story of a religion which once surpassed all others in its capacity for tolerating debate and dissent is now a real possibility. The entire experience of Islamic work over the past fifteen years has been one of increasing radicalization, driven by the perceived failure of the traditional Islamic institutions and the older Muslim movements to lead the Muslim peoples into the worthy but so far chimerical promised land of the 'Islamic State.'
If this final catastrophe is to be averted, the mainstream will have to regain the initiative. But for this to happen, it must begin by confessing that the radical critique of moderation has its force. The Islamic movement has so far been remarkably unsuccessful. We must ask ourselves how it is that a man like Nasser, a butcher, a failed soldier and a cynical demagogue, could have taken over a country as pivotal as Egypt, despite the vacuity of his beliefs, while the Muslim Brotherhood, with its pullulating millions of members, should have failed, and failed continuously, for six decades. The radical accusation of a failure in methodology cannot fail to strike home in such a context of dismal and prolonged inadequacy.
It is in this context - startlingly, perhaps, but inescapably - that we must present our case for the revival of the spiritual life within Islam. If it is ever to prosper, the 'Islamic revival' must be made to see that it is in crisis, and that its mental resources are proving insufficient to meet contemporary needs. The response to this must be grounded in an act of collective muhasaba, of self-examination, in terms that transcend the ideologised neo-Islam of the revivalists, and return to a more classical and indigenously Muslim dialectic.
Symptomatic of the disease is the fact that among all the explanations offered for the crisis of the Islamic movement, the only authentically Muslim interpretation, namely, that God should not be lending it His support, is conspicuously absent. It is true that we frequently hear the Quranic verse which states that "God does not change the condition of a people until they change the condition of their own selves."[1] But never, it seems, is this principle intelligently grasped. It is assumed that the sacred text is here doing no more than to enjoin individual moral reform as a precondition for collective societal success. Nothing could be more hazardous, however, than to measure such moral reform against the yardstick of the fiqh without giving concern to whether the virtues gained have been acquired through conformity (a relatively simple task), or proceed spontaneously from a genuine realignment of the soul. The verse is speaking of a spiritual change, specifically, a transformation of the nafs of the believers - not a moral one. And as the Blessed Prophet never tired of reminding us, there is little value in outward conformity to the rules unless this conformity is mirrored and engendered by an authentically righteous disposition of the heart. 'No-one shall enter the Garden by his works,' as he expressed it. Meanwhile, the profoundly judgemental and works - oriented tenor of modern revivalist Islam (we must shun the problematic buzz-word 'fundamentalism' ), fixated on visible manifestations of morality, has failed to address the underlying question of what revelation is for. For it is theological nonsense to suggest that God's final concern is with our ability to conform to a complex set of rules. His concern is rather that we should be restored, through our labours and His grace, to that state of purity and equilibrium with which we were born. The rules are a vital means to that end, and are facilitated by it. But they do not take its place.
The Holy Qur'an Sura 13:11.
To make this point, the Holy Quran deploys a striking metaphor. In Sura Ibrahim, verses 24 to 26, we read:
Have you not seen how God coineth a likeness: a goodly word like a goodly tree, the root whereof is set firm, its branch in the heaven? It bringeth forth its fruit at every time, by the leave of its Lord. Thus doth God coin likenesses for men, that perhaps they may reflect. And the likeness of an evil word is that of an evil tree that hath been torn up by the root from upon the earth, possessed of no stability.
According to the scholars of tafsir (exegesis), the reference here is to the 'words' (kalima) of faith and unfaith. The former is illustrated as a natural growth, whose florescence of moral and intellectual achievement is nourished by firm roots, which in turn denote the basis of faith: the quality of the proofs one has received, and the certainty and sound awareness of God which alone signify that one is firmly grounded in the reality of existence. The fruits thus yielded - the palpable benefits of the religious life - are permanent ('at every time'), and are not man's own accomplishment, for they only come 'by the leave of its Lord'. Thus is the sound life of faith. The contrast is then drawn with the only alternative: kufr, which is not grounded in reality but in illusion, and is hence 'possessed of no stability'.[2]
This passage, reminiscent of some of the binary categorisations of human types presented early on in Surat al-Baqara, precisely encapsulates the relationship between faith and works, the hierarchy which exists between them, and the sustainable balance between nourishment and fructition, between taking and giving, which true faith must maintain.
It is against this criterion that we must judge the quality of contemporary 'activist' styles of faith. Is the young 'ultra', with his intense rage which can sometimes render him liable to nervous disorders, and his fixation on a relatively narrow range of issues and concerns, really firmly rooted, and fruitful, in the sense described by this Quranic image?
Let me point to the answer with an example drawn from my own experience.
I used to know, quite well, a leader of the radical 'Islamic' group, the Jama'at Islamiya, at the Egyptian university of Assiut. His name was Hamdi. He grew a luxuriant beard, was constantly scrubbing his teeth with his miswak, and spent his time preaching hatred of the Coptic Christians, a number of whom were actually attacked and beaten up as a result of his khutbas. He had hundreds of followers; in fact, Assiut today remains a citadel of hardline, Wahhabi-style activism.
The moral of the story is that some five years after this acquaintance, providence again brought me face to face with Shaikh Hamdi. This time, chancing to see him on a Cairo street, I almost failed to recognise him. The beard was gone. He was in trousers and a sweater. More astonishing still was that he was walking with a young Western girl who turned out to be an Australian, whom, as he sheepishly explained to me, he was intending to marry. I talked to him, and it became clear that he was no longer even a minimally observant Muslim, no longer prayed, and that his ambition in life was to leave Egypt, live in Australia, and make money. What was extraordinary was that his experiences in Islamic activism had made no impression on him - he was once again the same distracted, ordinary Egyptian youth he had been before his conversion to 'radical Islam'.
This phenomenon, which we might label 'salafi burnout', is a recognised feature of many modern Muslim cultures. An initial enthusiasm, gained usually in one's early twenties, loses steam some seven to ten years later. Prison and torture - the frequent lot of the Islamic radical - may serve to prolong commitment, but ultimately, a majority of these neo-Muslims relapse, seemingly no better or worse for their experience in the cult-like universe of the salafi mindset.
This ephemerality of extremist activism should be as suspicious as its content. Authentic Muslim faith is simply not supposed to be this fragile; as the Qur'an says, its root is meant to be 'set firm'. One has to conclude that of the two trees depicted in the Quranic image, salafi extremism resembles the second rather than the first. After all, the Sahaba were not known for a transient commitment: their devotion and piety remained incomparably pure until they died.
What attracts young Muslims to this type of ephemeral but ferocious activism? One does not have to subscribe to determinist social theories to realise the importance of the almost universal condition of insecurity which Muslim societies are now experiencing. The Islamic world is passing through a most devastating period of transition. A history of economic and scientific change which in Europe took five hundred years, is, in the Muslim world, being squeezed into a couple of generations. For instance, only thirty-five years ago the capital of Saudi Arabia was a cluster of mud huts, as it had been for thousands of years. Today's Riyadh is a hi-tech megacity of glass towers, Coke machines, and gliding Cadillacs. This is an extreme case, but to some extent the dislocations of modernity are common to every Muslim society, excepting, perhaps, a handful of the most remote tribal peoples.
Such a transition period, with its centrifugal forces which allow nothing to remain constant, makes human beings very insecure. They look around for something to hold onto, that will give them an identity. In our case, that something is usually Islam. And because they are being propelled into it by this psychic sense of insecurity, rather than by the more normal processes of conversion and faith, they lack some of the natural religious virtues, which are acquired by contact with a continuous tradition, and can never be learnt from a book.
One easily visualises how this works. A young Arab, part of an oversized family, competing for scarce jobs, unable to marry because he is poor, perhaps a migrant to a rapidly expanding city, feels like a man lost in a desert without signposts. One morning he picks up a copy of Sayyid Qutb from a newsstand, and is 'born-again' on the spot. This is what he needed: instant certainty, a framework in which to interpret the landscape before him, to resolve the problems and tensions of his life, and, even more deliciously, a way of feeling superior and in control. He joins a group, and, anxious to retain his newfound certainty, accepts the usual proposition that all the other groups are mistaken.
This, of course, is not how Muslim religious conversion is supposed to work. It is meant to be a process of intellectual maturation, triggered by the presence of a very holy person or place. Tawba, in its traditional form, yields an outlook of joy, contentment, and a deep affection for others. The modern type of tawba, however, born of insecurity, often makes Muslims narrow, intolerant, and exclusivist. Even more noticeably, it produces people whose faith is, despite its apparent intensity, liable to vanish as suddenly as it came. Deprived of real nourishment, the activist's soul can only grow hungry and emaciated, until at last it dies.
THE ACTIVISM WITHIN
How should we respond to this disorder? We must begin by remembering what Islam is for. As we noted earlier, our din is not, ultimately, a manual of rules which, when meticulously followed, becomes a passport to paradise. Instead, it is a package of social, intellectual and spiritual technology whose purpose is to cleanse the human heart. In the Qur'an, the Lord says that on the Day of Judgement, nothing will be of any use to us, except a sound heart (qalbun salim). [3] And in a famous hadith, the Prophet, upon whom be blessings and peace, says that
"Verily in the body there is a piece of flesh. If it is sound, the body is all sound. If it is corrupt, the body is all corrupt. Verily, it is the heart.
Mindful of this commandment, under which all the other commandments of Islam are subsumed, and which alone gives them meaning, the Islamic scholars have worked out a science, an ilm (science), of analysing the 'states' of the heart, and the methods of bringing it into this condition of soundness. In the fullness of time, this science acquired the name tasawwuf, in English 'Sufism' - a traditional label for what we might nowadays more intelligibly call 'Islamic psychology.'
At this point, many hackles are raised and well-rehearsed objections voiced. It is vital to understand that mainstream Sufism is not, and never has been, a doctrinal system, or a school of thought - a madhhab. It is, instead, a set of insights and practices which operate within the various Islamic madhhabs; in other words, it is not a madhhab, it is an ilm. And like most of the other Islamic ulum, it was not known by name, or in its later developed form, in the age of the Prophet (upon him be blessings and peace) or his Companions. This does not make it less legitimate. There are many Islamic sciences which only took shape many years after the Prophetic age: usul al-fiqh, for instance, or the innumerable technical disciplines of hadith.
Now this, of course, leads us into the often misunderstood area of sunna and bid'a, two notions which are wielded as blunt instruments by many contemporary activists, but which are often grossly misunderstood. The classic Orientalist thesis is of course that Islam, as an 'arid Semitic religion', failed to incorporate mechanisms for its own development, and that it petrified upon the death of its founder. This, however, is a nonsense rooted in the ethnic determinism of the nineteenth century historians who had shaped the views of the early Orientalist synthesizers (Muir, Le Bon, Renan, Caetani). Islam, as the religion designed for the end of time, has in fact proved itself eminently adaptable to the rapidly changing conditions which characterise this final and most 'entropic' stage of history.
What is a bid'a, according to the classical definitions of Islamic law? We all know the famous hadith:
Beware of matters newly begun, for every matter newly begun is innovation, every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in Hell. [4]
Does this mean that everything introduced into Islam that was not known to the first generation of Muslims is to be rejected? The classical ulema do not accept such a literalistic interpretation.
Let us take a definition from Imam al-Shafi'i, an authority universally accepted in Sunni Islam. Imam al-Shafi'i writes:
There are two kinds of introduced matters (muhdathat). One is that which contradicts a text of the Qur'an, or the Sunna, or a report from the early Muslims (athar), or the consensus (ijma') of the Muslims: this is an 'innovation of misguidance' (bid'at dalala). The second kind is that which is in itself good and entails no contradiction of any of these authorities: this is a 'non-reprehensible innovation' (bid'a ghayr madhmuma). [5]
This basic distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forms of bid'a is recognised by the overwhelming majority of classical ulema. Among some, for instance al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam (one of the half-dozen or so great mujtahids of Islamic history), innovations fall under the five axiological headings of the Shari'a: the obligatory (wajib), the recommended (mandub), the permissible (mubah), the offensive (makruh), and the forbidden (haram).[6]
Under the category of 'obligatory innovation', Ibn Abd al-Salam gives the following examples: recording the Qur'an and the laws of Islam in writing at a time when it was feared that they would be lost, studying Arabic grammar in order to resolve controversies over the Qur'an, and developing philosophical theology (kalam) to refute the claims of the Mu'tazilites.
Category two is 'recommended innovation'. Under this heading the ulema list such activities as building madrasas, writing books on beneficial Islamic subjects, and in-depth studies of Arabic linguistics.
Category three is 'permissible' , or 'neutral innovation', including worldly activities such as sifting flour, and constructing houses in various styles not known in Medina.
Category four is the 'reprehensible innovation'. This includes such misdemeanours as overdecorating mosques or the Qur'an.
Category five is the 'forbidden innovation'. This includes unlawful taxes, giving judgeships to those unqualified to hold them, and sectarian beliefs and practices that explicitly contravene the known principles of the Qur'an and the Sunna.
The above classification of bid'a types is normal in classical Shari'a literature, being accepted by the four schools of orthodox fiqh. There have been only two significant exceptions to this understanding in the history of Islamic thought: the Zahiri school as articulated by Ibn Hazm, and one wing of the Hanbali madhhab, represented by Ibn Taymiya, who goes against the classical ijma' on this issue, and claims that all forms of innovation, good or bad, are un-Islamic.
Why is it, then, that so many Muslims now believe that innovation in any form is unacceptable in Islam? One factor has already been touched on: the mental complexes thrown up by insecurity, which incline people to find comfort in absolutist and literalist interpretations. Another lies in the influence of the well-financed neo-Hanbali madhhab called Wahhabism, whose leaders are famous for their rejection of all possibility of development.
In any case, armed with this more sophisticated and classical awareness of Islam's ability to acknowledge and assimilate novelty, we can understand how Muslim civilisation was able so quickly to produce novel academic disciplines to deal with new problems as these arose.
Islamic psychology is characteristic of the new ulum which, although present in latent and implicit form in the Quran, were first systematized in Islamic culture during the early Abbasid period. Given the importance that the Quran attaches to obtaining a 'sound heart', we are not surprised to find that the influence of Islamic psychology has been massive and all-pervasive. In the formative first four centuries of Islam, the time when the great works of tafsir, hadith, grammar, and so forth were laid down, the ulema also applied their minds to this problem of al-qalb al-salim. This was first visible when, following the example of the Tabi'in, many of the early ascetics, such as Sufyan ibn Uyayna, Sufyan al-Thawri, and Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak, had focussed their concerns explicitly on the art of purifying the heart. The methods they recommended were frequent fasting and night prayer, periodic retreats, and a preoccupation with murabata: service as volunteer fighters in the border castles of Asia Minor.
This type of pietist orientation was not in the least systematic during this period. It was a loose category embracing all Muslims who sought salvation through the Prophetic virtues of renunciation, sincerity, and deep devotion to the revelation. These men and women were variously referred to as al-bakka'un: 'the weepers', because of their fear of the Day of Judgement, or as zuhhad, ascetics, or ubbad, 'unceasing worshippers' .
By the third century, however, we start to find writings which can be understood as belonging to a distinct devotional school. The increasing luxury and materialism of Abbasid urban society spurred many Muslims to campaign for a restoration of the simplicity of the Prophetic age. Purity of heart, compassion for others, and a constant recollection of God were the defining features of this trend. We find references to the method of muhasaba: self-examination to detect impurities of intention. Also stressed was riyada: self-discipline.
By this time, too, the main outlines of Quranic psychology had been worked out. The human creature, it was realised, was made up of four constituent parts: the body (jism), the mind (aql), the spirit (ruh), and the self (nafs). The first two need little comment. Less familiar (at least to people of a modern education) are the third and fourth categories.
The spirit is the ruh, that underlying essence of the human individual which survives death. It is hard to comprehend rationally, being in part of Divine inspiration, as the Quran says:
"And they ask you about the spirit; say, the spirit is of the command of my Lord. And you have been given of knowledge only a little."[7]
According to the early Islamic psychologists, the ruh is a non-material reality which pervades the entire human body, but is centred on the heart, the qalb. It represents that part of man which is not of this world, and which connects him with his Creator, and which, if he is fortunate, enables him to see God in the next world. When we are born, this ruh is intact and pure. As we are initiated into the distractions of the world, however, it is covered over with the 'rust' (ran) of which the Quran speaks. This rust is made up of two things: sin and distraction. When, through the process of self-discipline, these are banished, so that the worshipper is preserved from sin and is focussing entirely on the immediate presence and reality of God, the rust is dissolved, and the ruh once again is free. The heart is sound; and salvation, and closeness to God, are achieved.
This sounds simple enough. However, the early Muslims taught that such precious things come only at an appropriate price. Cleaning up the Augean stables of the heart is a most excruciating challenge. Outward conformity to the rules of religion is simple enough; but it is only the first step. Much more demanding is the policy known as mujahada: the daily combat against the lower self, the nafs. As the Quran says:
'As for him that fears the standing before his Lord, and forbids his nafs its desires, for him, Heaven shall be his place of resort.'[8]
Hence the Sufi commandment:
'Slaughter your ego with the knives of mujahada.' [9]
Once the nafs is controlled, then the heart is clear, and the virtues proceed from it easily and naturally.
Because its objective is nothing less than salvation, this vital Islamic science has been consistently expounded by the great scholars of classical Islam. While today there are many Muslims, influenced by either Wahhabi or Orientalist agendas, who believe that Sufism has always led a somewhat marginal existence in Islam, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of the classical scholars were actively involved in Sufism.
The early Shafi'i scholars of Khurasan: al-Hakim al-Nisaburi, Ibn Furak, al-Qushayri and al-Bayhaqi, were all Sufis who formed links in the richest academic tradition of Abbasid Islam, which culminated in the achievement of Imam Hujjat al-Islam al-Ghazali. Ghazali himself, author of some three hundred books, including the definitive rebuttals of Arab philosophy and the Ismailis, three large textbooks of Shafi'i fiqh, the best-known tract of usul al-fiqh, two works on logic, and several theological treatises, also left us with the classic statement of orthodox Sufism: the Ihya Ulum al-Din, a book of which Imam Nawawi remarked:
"Were the books of Islam all to be lost, excepting only the Ihya', it would suffice to replace them all." [10]
Imam Nawawi himself wrote two books which record his debt to Sufism, one called the Bustan al-Arifin ('Garden of the Gnostics', and another called the al-Maqasid (recently published in English translation, Sunna Books, Evanston Il. trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller).
Among the Malikis, too, Sufism was popular. Al-Sawi, al-Dardir, al-Laqqani and Abd al-Wahhab al-Baghdadi were all exponents of Sufism. The Maliki jurist of Cairo, Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha'rani defines Sufism as follows:
'The path of the Sufis is built on the Quran and the Sunna, and is based on living according to the morals of the prophets and the purified ones. It may not be blamed, unless it violates an explicit statement from the Quran, sunna, or ijma. If it does not contravene any of these sources, then no pretext remains for condemning it, except one's own low opinion of others, or interpreting what they do as ostentation, which is unlawful. No-one denies the states of the Sufis except someone ignorant of the way they are.'[11]
For Hanbali Sufism one has to look no further than the revered figures of Abdallah Ansari, Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, Ibn al-Jawzi, and Ibn Rajab.
In fact, virtually all the great luminaries of medieval Islam: al-Suyuti, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, al-Ayni, Ibn Khaldun, al-Subki, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami; tafsir writers like Baydawi, al-Sawi, Abu'l-Su'ud, al-Baghawi, and Ibn Kathir[12] ; aqida writers such as Taftazani, al-Nasafi, al-Razi: all wrote in support of Sufism. Many, indeed, composed independent works of Sufi inspiration. The ulema of the great dynasties of Islamic history, including the Ottomans and the Moghuls, were deeply infused with the Sufi outlook, regarding it as one of the most central and indispensable of Islamic sciences.
Further confirmation of the Islamic legitimacy of Sufism is supplied by the enthusiasm of its exponents for carrying Islam beyond the boundaries of the Islamic world. The Islamization process in India, Black Africa, and South-East Asia was carried out largely at the hands of wandering Sufi teachers. Likewise, the Islamic obligation of jihad has been borne with especial zeal by the Sufi orders. All the great nineteenth century jihadists: Uthman dan Fodio (Hausaland), al-Sanousi (Libya), Abd al-Qadir al-Jaza'iri (Algeria), Imam Shamil (Daghestan) and the leaders of the Padre Rebellion (Sumatra) were active practitioners of Sufism, writing extensively on it while on their campaigns. Nothing is further from reality, in fact, than the claim that Sufism represents a quietist and non-militant form of Islam.
With all this, we confront a paradox. Why is it, if Sufism has been so respected a part of Muslim intellectual and political life throughout our history, that there are, nowadays, angry voices raised against it? There are two fundamental reasons here.
Firstly, there is again the pervasive influence of Orientalist scholarship, which, at least before 1922 when Massignon wrote his Essai sur les origines de la lexique technique, was of the opinion that something so fertile and profound as Sufism could never have grown from the essentially 'barren and legalistic' soil of Islam. Orientalist works translated into Muslim languages were influential upon key Muslim modernists - such as Muhammad Abduh in his later writings - who began to question the centrality, or even the legitimacy, of Sufi discourse in Islam.
Secondly, there is the emergence of the Wahhabi da'wa. When Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, some two hundred years ago, teamed up with the Saudi tribe and attacked the neighbouring clans, he was doing so under the sign of an essentially neo-Kharijite version of Islam. Although he invoked Ibn Taymiya, he had reservations even about him. For Ibn Taymiya himself, although critical of the excesses of certain Sufi groups, had been committed to a branch of mainstream Sufism. This is clear, for instance, in Ibn Taymiya's work Sharh Futuh al-Ghayb, a commentary on some technical points in the Revelations of the Unseen, a key work by the sixth-century saint of Baghdad, Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani. Throughout the work Ibn Taymiya shows himself to be a loyal disciple of al-Jilani, whom he always refers to as shaykhuna ('our teacher'). This Qadiri affiliation is confirmed in the later literature of the Qadiri tariqa, which records Ibn Taymiya as a key link in the silsila, the chain of transmission of Qadiri teachings.[13]
Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, however, went far beyond this. Raised in the wastelands of Najd in Central Arabia, he had little access to mainstream Muslim scholarship. In fact, when his da'wa appeared and became notorious, the scholars and muftis of the day applied to it the famous Hadith of Najd:
Ibn Umar reported the Prophet (upon whom be blessings and peace) as saying: "Oh God, bless us in our Syria; O God, bless us in our Yemen." Those present said: "And in our Najd, O Messenger of God!" but he said, "O God, bless us in our Syria; O God, bless us in our Yemen." Those present said, "And in our Najd, O Messenger of God!". Ibn Umar said that he thought that he said on the third occasion: "Earthquakes and dissensions (fitna) are there, and there shall arise the horn of the devil."[14]
And it is significant that almost uniquely among the lands of Islam, Najd has never produced scholars of any repute.
The Najd-based da'wa of the Wahhabis, however, began to be heard more loudly following the explosion of Saudi oil wealth. Many, even most, Islamic publishing houses in Cairo and Beirut are now subsidised by Wahhabi organisations, which prevent them from publishing traditional works on Sufism, and remove passages in other works considered unacceptable to Wahhabist doctrine.
The neo-Kharijite nature of Wahhabism makes it intolerant of all other forms of Islamic expression. However, because it has no coherent fiqh of its own - it rejects the orthodox madhhabs - and has only the most basic and primitively anthropomorphic aqida, it has a fluid, amoebalike tendency to produce divisions and subdivisions among those who profess it. No longer are the Islamic groups essentially united by a consistent madhhab and the Ash'ari [or Maturidi] aqida. Instead, they are all trying to derive the shari'a and the aqida from the Quran and the Sunna by themselves. The result is the appalling state of division and conflict which disfigures the modern salafi condition.
At this critical moment in our history, the umma has only one realistic hope for survival, and that is to restore the 'middle way', defined by that sophisticated classical consensus which was worked out over painful centuries of debate and scholarship. That consensus alone has the demonstrable ability to provide a basis for unity. But it can only be retrieved when we improve the state of our hearts, and fill them with the Islamic virtues of affection, respect, tolerance and reconciliation. This inner reform, which is the traditional competence of Sufism, is a precondition for the restoration of unity in the Islamic movement. The alternative is likely to be continued, and agonising, failure.
_______________________________
NOTES
1. Sura 13:11.
2. For a further analysis of this passage, see Habib Ahmad Mashhur al-Haddad, Key to the Garden (Quilliam Press, London 1990 CE), 78-81.
3. Sura 26:89. The archetype is Abrahamic: see Sura 37:84.
4. This hadith is in fact an instance of takhsis al-amm: a frequent procedure of usul al-fiqh by which an apparently unqualified statement is qualified to avoid the contradiction of another necessary principle. See Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, tr. Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Abu Dhabi, 1991 CE), 907-8 for some further examples.
5. Ibn Asakir, Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (Damascus, 1347), 97.
6. Cited in Muhammad al-Jurdani, al-Jawahir al-lu'lu'iyya fi sharh al-Arba'in al-Nawawiya (Damascus, 1328), 220-1.
7. 17:85.
8. 79:40.
9. al-Qushayri, al-Risala (Cairo, n.d.), I, 393.
10. al-Zabidi, Ithaf al-sada al-muttaqin (Cairo, 1311), I, 27.
11. Sha'rani, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra (Cairo, 1374), I, 4.
12. It is true that Ibn Kathir in his Bidaya is critical of some later Sufis. Nonetheless, in his Mawlid, which he asked his pupils to recite on the occasion of the Blessed Prophet's birthday each year, he makes his personal debt to a conservative and sober Sufism quite clear.
13. See G. Makdisi's article 'Ibn Taymiyya: A Sufi of the Qadiriya Order' in the American Journal of Arabic Studies, 1973.
14. Narrated by Bukhari. The translation is from J. Robson, Mishkat al-Masabih (Lahore, 1970), II, 1380.
© Abdal-Hakim Murad
THE POVERTY OF FANATICISM
'Blood is no argument', as Shakespeare observed. Sadly, Muslim ranks are today swollen with those who disagree. The World Trade Centre, yesterday's symbol of global finance, has today become a monument to the failure of global Islam to control those who believe that the West can be bullied into changing its wayward ways towards the East. There is no real excuse to hand. It is simply not enough to clamour, as many have done, about 'chickens coming home to roost', and to protest that Washington's acquiescence in Israeli policies of ethnic cleansing is the inevitable generator of such hate. It is of course true - as Shabbir Akhtar has noted - that powerlessness can corrupt as insistently as does power. But to comprehend is not to sanction or even to empathize. To take innocent life to achieve a goal is the hallmark of the most extreme secular utilitarian ethic, and stands at the opposite pole of the absolute moral constraints required by religion.
There was a time, not long ago, when the 'ultras' were few, forming only a tiny wart on the face of the worldwide attempt to revivify Islam. Sadly, we can no longer enjoy the luxury of ignoring them. The extreme has broadened, and the middle ground, giving way, is everywhere dislocated and confused. And this enfeeblement of the middle ground, was what was enjoined by the Prophetic example, is in turn accelerated by the opprobrium which the extremists bring not simply upon themselves, but upon committed Muslims everywhere. For here, as elsewhere, the preferences of the media work firmly against us. David Koresh could broadcast his fringe Biblical message from Ranch Apocalypse without the image of Christianity, or even its Adventist wing, being in any way besmirched. But when a fringe Islamic group bombs Swedish tourists in Cairo, the muck is instantly spread over 'militant Muslims' everywhere.
If these things go on, the Islamic movement will cease to form an authentic summons to cultural and spiritual renewal, and will exist as little more than a splintered array of maniacal factions. The prospect of such an appalling and humiliating end to the story of a religion which once surpassed all others in its capacity for tolerating debate and dissent is now a real possibility. The entire experience of Islamic work over the past fifteen years has been one of increasing radicalization, driven by the perceived failure of the traditional Islamic institutions and the older Muslim movements to lead the Muslim peoples into the worthy but so far chimerical promised land of the 'Islamic State.'
If this final catastrophe is to be averted, the mainstream will have to regain the initiative. But for this to happen, it must begin by confessing that the radical critique of moderation has its force. The Islamic movement has so far been remarkably unsuccessful. We must ask ourselves how it is that a man like Nasser, a butcher, a failed soldier and a cynical demagogue, could have taken over a country as pivotal as Egypt, despite the vacuity of his beliefs, while the Muslim Brotherhood, with its pullulating millions of members, should have failed, and failed continuously, for six decades. The radical accusation of a failure in methodology cannot fail to strike home in such a context of dismal and prolonged inadequacy.
It is in this context - startlingly, perhaps, but inescapably - that we must present our case for the revival of the spiritual life within Islam. If it is ever to prosper, the 'Islamic revival' must be made to see that it is in crisis, and that its mental resources are proving insufficient to meet contemporary needs. The response to this must be grounded in an act of collective muhasaba, of self-examination, in terms that transcend the ideologised neo-Islam of the revivalists, and return to a more classical and indigenously Muslim dialectic.
Symptomatic of the disease is the fact that among all the explanations offered for the crisis of the Islamic movement, the only authentically Muslim interpretation, namely, that God should not be lending it His support, is conspicuously absent. It is true that we frequently hear the Quranic verse which states that "God does not change the condition of a people until they change the condition of their own selves."[1] But never, it seems, is this principle intelligently grasped. It is assumed that the sacred text is here doing no more than to enjoin individual moral reform as a precondition for collective societal success. Nothing could be more hazardous, however, than to measure such moral reform against the yardstick of the fiqh without giving concern to whether the virtues gained have been acquired through conformity (a relatively simple task), or proceed spontaneously from a genuine realignment of the soul. The verse is speaking of a spiritual change, specifically, a transformation of the nafs of the believers - not a moral one. And as the Blessed Prophet never tired of reminding us, there is little value in outward conformity to the rules unless this conformity is mirrored and engendered by an authentically righteous disposition of the heart. 'No-one shall enter the Garden by his works,' as he expressed it. Meanwhile, the profoundly judgemental and works - oriented tenor of modern revivalist Islam (we must shun the problematic buzz-word 'fundamentalism' ), fixated on visible manifestations of morality, has failed to address the underlying question of what revelation is for. For it is theological nonsense to suggest that God's final concern is with our ability to conform to a complex set of rules. His concern is rather that we should be restored, through our labours and His grace, to that state of purity and equilibrium with which we were born. The rules are a vital means to that end, and are facilitated by it. But they do not take its place.
The Holy Qur'an Sura 13:11.
To make this point, the Holy Quran deploys a striking metaphor. In Sura Ibrahim, verses 24 to 26, we read:
Have you not seen how God coineth a likeness: a goodly word like a goodly tree, the root whereof is set firm, its branch in the heaven? It bringeth forth its fruit at every time, by the leave of its Lord. Thus doth God coin likenesses for men, that perhaps they may reflect. And the likeness of an evil word is that of an evil tree that hath been torn up by the root from upon the earth, possessed of no stability.
According to the scholars of tafsir (exegesis), the reference here is to the 'words' (kalima) of faith and unfaith. The former is illustrated as a natural growth, whose florescence of moral and intellectual achievement is nourished by firm roots, which in turn denote the basis of faith: the quality of the proofs one has received, and the certainty and sound awareness of God which alone signify that one is firmly grounded in the reality of existence. The fruits thus yielded - the palpable benefits of the religious life - are permanent ('at every time'), and are not man's own accomplishment, for they only come 'by the leave of its Lord'. Thus is the sound life of faith. The contrast is then drawn with the only alternative: kufr, which is not grounded in reality but in illusion, and is hence 'possessed of no stability'.[2]
This passage, reminiscent of some of the binary categorisations of human types presented early on in Surat al-Baqara, precisely encapsulates the relationship between faith and works, the hierarchy which exists between them, and the sustainable balance between nourishment and fructition, between taking and giving, which true faith must maintain.
It is against this criterion that we must judge the quality of contemporary 'activist' styles of faith. Is the young 'ultra', with his intense rage which can sometimes render him liable to nervous disorders, and his fixation on a relatively narrow range of issues and concerns, really firmly rooted, and fruitful, in the sense described by this Quranic image?
Let me point to the answer with an example drawn from my own experience.
I used to know, quite well, a leader of the radical 'Islamic' group, the Jama'at Islamiya, at the Egyptian university of Assiut. His name was Hamdi. He grew a luxuriant beard, was constantly scrubbing his teeth with his miswak, and spent his time preaching hatred of the Coptic Christians, a number of whom were actually attacked and beaten up as a result of his khutbas. He had hundreds of followers; in fact, Assiut today remains a citadel of hardline, Wahhabi-style activism.
The moral of the story is that some five years after this acquaintance, providence again brought me face to face with Shaikh Hamdi. This time, chancing to see him on a Cairo street, I almost failed to recognise him. The beard was gone. He was in trousers and a sweater. More astonishing still was that he was walking with a young Western girl who turned out to be an Australian, whom, as he sheepishly explained to me, he was intending to marry. I talked to him, and it became clear that he was no longer even a minimally observant Muslim, no longer prayed, and that his ambition in life was to leave Egypt, live in Australia, and make money. What was extraordinary was that his experiences in Islamic activism had made no impression on him - he was once again the same distracted, ordinary Egyptian youth he had been before his conversion to 'radical Islam'.
This phenomenon, which we might label 'salafi burnout', is a recognised feature of many modern Muslim cultures. An initial enthusiasm, gained usually in one's early twenties, loses steam some seven to ten years later. Prison and torture - the frequent lot of the Islamic radical - may serve to prolong commitment, but ultimately, a majority of these neo-Muslims relapse, seemingly no better or worse for their experience in the cult-like universe of the salafi mindset.
This ephemerality of extremist activism should be as suspicious as its content. Authentic Muslim faith is simply not supposed to be this fragile; as the Qur'an says, its root is meant to be 'set firm'. One has to conclude that of the two trees depicted in the Quranic image, salafi extremism resembles the second rather than the first. After all, the Sahaba were not known for a transient commitment: their devotion and piety remained incomparably pure until they died.
What attracts young Muslims to this type of ephemeral but ferocious activism? One does not have to subscribe to determinist social theories to realise the importance of the almost universal condition of insecurity which Muslim societies are now experiencing. The Islamic world is passing through a most devastating period of transition. A history of economic and scientific change which in Europe took five hundred years, is, in the Muslim world, being squeezed into a couple of generations. For instance, only thirty-five years ago the capital of Saudi Arabia was a cluster of mud huts, as it had been for thousands of years. Today's Riyadh is a hi-tech megacity of glass towers, Coke machines, and gliding Cadillacs. This is an extreme case, but to some extent the dislocations of modernity are common to every Muslim society, excepting, perhaps, a handful of the most remote tribal peoples.
Such a transition period, with its centrifugal forces which allow nothing to remain constant, makes human beings very insecure. They look around for something to hold onto, that will give them an identity. In our case, that something is usually Islam. And because they are being propelled into it by this psychic sense of insecurity, rather than by the more normal processes of conversion and faith, they lack some of the natural religious virtues, which are acquired by contact with a continuous tradition, and can never be learnt from a book.
One easily visualises how this works. A young Arab, part of an oversized family, competing for scarce jobs, unable to marry because he is poor, perhaps a migrant to a rapidly expanding city, feels like a man lost in a desert without signposts. One morning he picks up a copy of Sayyid Qutb from a newsstand, and is 'born-again' on the spot. This is what he needed: instant certainty, a framework in which to interpret the landscape before him, to resolve the problems and tensions of his life, and, even more deliciously, a way of feeling superior and in control. He joins a group, and, anxious to retain his newfound certainty, accepts the usual proposition that all the other groups are mistaken.
This, of course, is not how Muslim religious conversion is supposed to work. It is meant to be a process of intellectual maturation, triggered by the presence of a very holy person or place. Tawba, in its traditional form, yields an outlook of joy, contentment, and a deep affection for others. The modern type of tawba, however, born of insecurity, often makes Muslims narrow, intolerant, and exclusivist. Even more noticeably, it produces people whose faith is, despite its apparent intensity, liable to vanish as suddenly as it came. Deprived of real nourishment, the activist's soul can only grow hungry and emaciated, until at last it dies.
THE ACTIVISM WITHIN
How should we respond to this disorder? We must begin by remembering what Islam is for. As we noted earlier, our din is not, ultimately, a manual of rules which, when meticulously followed, becomes a passport to paradise. Instead, it is a package of social, intellectual and spiritual technology whose purpose is to cleanse the human heart. In the Qur'an, the Lord says that on the Day of Judgement, nothing will be of any use to us, except a sound heart (qalbun salim). [3] And in a famous hadith, the Prophet, upon whom be blessings and peace, says that
"Verily in the body there is a piece of flesh. If it is sound, the body is all sound. If it is corrupt, the body is all corrupt. Verily, it is the heart.
Mindful of this commandment, under which all the other commandments of Islam are subsumed, and which alone gives them meaning, the Islamic scholars have worked out a science, an ilm (science), of analysing the 'states' of the heart, and the methods of bringing it into this condition of soundness. In the fullness of time, this science acquired the name tasawwuf, in English 'Sufism' - a traditional label for what we might nowadays more intelligibly call 'Islamic psychology.'
At this point, many hackles are raised and well-rehearsed objections voiced. It is vital to understand that mainstream Sufism is not, and never has been, a doctrinal system, or a school of thought - a madhhab. It is, instead, a set of insights and practices which operate within the various Islamic madhhabs; in other words, it is not a madhhab, it is an ilm. And like most of the other Islamic ulum, it was not known by name, or in its later developed form, in the age of the Prophet (upon him be blessings and peace) or his Companions. This does not make it less legitimate. There are many Islamic sciences which only took shape many years after the Prophetic age: usul al-fiqh, for instance, or the innumerable technical disciplines of hadith.
Now this, of course, leads us into the often misunderstood area of sunna and bid'a, two notions which are wielded as blunt instruments by many contemporary activists, but which are often grossly misunderstood. The classic Orientalist thesis is of course that Islam, as an 'arid Semitic religion', failed to incorporate mechanisms for its own development, and that it petrified upon the death of its founder. This, however, is a nonsense rooted in the ethnic determinism of the nineteenth century historians who had shaped the views of the early Orientalist synthesizers (Muir, Le Bon, Renan, Caetani). Islam, as the religion designed for the end of time, has in fact proved itself eminently adaptable to the rapidly changing conditions which characterise this final and most 'entropic' stage of history.
What is a bid'a, according to the classical definitions of Islamic law? We all know the famous hadith:
Beware of matters newly begun, for every matter newly begun is innovation, every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in Hell. [4]
Does this mean that everything introduced into Islam that was not known to the first generation of Muslims is to be rejected? The classical ulema do not accept such a literalistic interpretation.
Let us take a definition from Imam al-Shafi'i, an authority universally accepted in Sunni Islam. Imam al-Shafi'i writes:
There are two kinds of introduced matters (muhdathat). One is that which contradicts a text of the Qur'an, or the Sunna, or a report from the early Muslims (athar), or the consensus (ijma') of the Muslims: this is an 'innovation of misguidance' (bid'at dalala). The second kind is that which is in itself good and entails no contradiction of any of these authorities: this is a 'non-reprehensible innovation' (bid'a ghayr madhmuma). [5]
This basic distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forms of bid'a is recognised by the overwhelming majority of classical ulema. Among some, for instance al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam (one of the half-dozen or so great mujtahids of Islamic history), innovations fall under the five axiological headings of the Shari'a: the obligatory (wajib), the recommended (mandub), the permissible (mubah), the offensive (makruh), and the forbidden (haram).[6]
Under the category of 'obligatory innovation', Ibn Abd al-Salam gives the following examples: recording the Qur'an and the laws of Islam in writing at a time when it was feared that they would be lost, studying Arabic grammar in order to resolve controversies over the Qur'an, and developing philosophical theology (kalam) to refute the claims of the Mu'tazilites.
Category two is 'recommended innovation'. Under this heading the ulema list such activities as building madrasas, writing books on beneficial Islamic subjects, and in-depth studies of Arabic linguistics.
Category three is 'permissible' , or 'neutral innovation', including worldly activities such as sifting flour, and constructing houses in various styles not known in Medina.
Category four is the 'reprehensible innovation'. This includes such misdemeanours as overdecorating mosques or the Qur'an.
Category five is the 'forbidden innovation'. This includes unlawful taxes, giving judgeships to those unqualified to hold them, and sectarian beliefs and practices that explicitly contravene the known principles of the Qur'an and the Sunna.
The above classification of bid'a types is normal in classical Shari'a literature, being accepted by the four schools of orthodox fiqh. There have been only two significant exceptions to this understanding in the history of Islamic thought: the Zahiri school as articulated by Ibn Hazm, and one wing of the Hanbali madhhab, represented by Ibn Taymiya, who goes against the classical ijma' on this issue, and claims that all forms of innovation, good or bad, are un-Islamic.
Why is it, then, that so many Muslims now believe that innovation in any form is unacceptable in Islam? One factor has already been touched on: the mental complexes thrown up by insecurity, which incline people to find comfort in absolutist and literalist interpretations. Another lies in the influence of the well-financed neo-Hanbali madhhab called Wahhabism, whose leaders are famous for their rejection of all possibility of development.
In any case, armed with this more sophisticated and classical awareness of Islam's ability to acknowledge and assimilate novelty, we can understand how Muslim civilisation was able so quickly to produce novel academic disciplines to deal with new problems as these arose.
Islamic psychology is characteristic of the new ulum which, although present in latent and implicit form in the Quran, were first systematized in Islamic culture during the early Abbasid period. Given the importance that the Quran attaches to obtaining a 'sound heart', we are not surprised to find that the influence of Islamic psychology has been massive and all-pervasive. In the formative first four centuries of Islam, the time when the great works of tafsir, hadith, grammar, and so forth were laid down, the ulema also applied their minds to this problem of al-qalb al-salim. This was first visible when, following the example of the Tabi'in, many of the early ascetics, such as Sufyan ibn Uyayna, Sufyan al-Thawri, and Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak, had focussed their concerns explicitly on the art of purifying the heart. The methods they recommended were frequent fasting and night prayer, periodic retreats, and a preoccupation with murabata: service as volunteer fighters in the border castles of Asia Minor.
This type of pietist orientation was not in the least systematic during this period. It was a loose category embracing all Muslims who sought salvation through the Prophetic virtues of renunciation, sincerity, and deep devotion to the revelation. These men and women were variously referred to as al-bakka'un: 'the weepers', because of their fear of the Day of Judgement, or as zuhhad, ascetics, or ubbad, 'unceasing worshippers' .
By the third century, however, we start to find writings which can be understood as belonging to a distinct devotional school. The increasing luxury and materialism of Abbasid urban society spurred many Muslims to campaign for a restoration of the simplicity of the Prophetic age. Purity of heart, compassion for others, and a constant recollection of God were the defining features of this trend. We find references to the method of muhasaba: self-examination to detect impurities of intention. Also stressed was riyada: self-discipline.
By this time, too, the main outlines of Quranic psychology had been worked out. The human creature, it was realised, was made up of four constituent parts: the body (jism), the mind (aql), the spirit (ruh), and the self (nafs). The first two need little comment. Less familiar (at least to people of a modern education) are the third and fourth categories.
The spirit is the ruh, that underlying essence of the human individual which survives death. It is hard to comprehend rationally, being in part of Divine inspiration, as the Quran says:
"And they ask you about the spirit; say, the spirit is of the command of my Lord. And you have been given of knowledge only a little."[7]
According to the early Islamic psychologists, the ruh is a non-material reality which pervades the entire human body, but is centred on the heart, the qalb. It represents that part of man which is not of this world, and which connects him with his Creator, and which, if he is fortunate, enables him to see God in the next world. When we are born, this ruh is intact and pure. As we are initiated into the distractions of the world, however, it is covered over with the 'rust' (ran) of which the Quran speaks. This rust is made up of two things: sin and distraction. When, through the process of self-discipline, these are banished, so that the worshipper is preserved from sin and is focussing entirely on the immediate presence and reality of God, the rust is dissolved, and the ruh once again is free. The heart is sound; and salvation, and closeness to God, are achieved.
This sounds simple enough. However, the early Muslims taught that such precious things come only at an appropriate price. Cleaning up the Augean stables of the heart is a most excruciating challenge. Outward conformity to the rules of religion is simple enough; but it is only the first step. Much more demanding is the policy known as mujahada: the daily combat against the lower self, the nafs. As the Quran says:
'As for him that fears the standing before his Lord, and forbids his nafs its desires, for him, Heaven shall be his place of resort.'[8]
Hence the Sufi commandment:
'Slaughter your ego with the knives of mujahada.' [9]
Once the nafs is controlled, then the heart is clear, and the virtues proceed from it easily and naturally.
Because its objective is nothing less than salvation, this vital Islamic science has been consistently expounded by the great scholars of classical Islam. While today there are many Muslims, influenced by either Wahhabi or Orientalist agendas, who believe that Sufism has always led a somewhat marginal existence in Islam, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of the classical scholars were actively involved in Sufism.
The early Shafi'i scholars of Khurasan: al-Hakim al-Nisaburi, Ibn Furak, al-Qushayri and al-Bayhaqi, were all Sufis who formed links in the richest academic tradition of Abbasid Islam, which culminated in the achievement of Imam Hujjat al-Islam al-Ghazali. Ghazali himself, author of some three hundred books, including the definitive rebuttals of Arab philosophy and the Ismailis, three large textbooks of Shafi'i fiqh, the best-known tract of usul al-fiqh, two works on logic, and several theological treatises, also left us with the classic statement of orthodox Sufism: the Ihya Ulum al-Din, a book of which Imam Nawawi remarked:
"Were the books of Islam all to be lost, excepting only the Ihya', it would suffice to replace them all." [10]
Imam Nawawi himself wrote two books which record his debt to Sufism, one called the Bustan al-Arifin ('Garden of the Gnostics', and another called the al-Maqasid (recently published in English translation, Sunna Books, Evanston Il. trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller).
Among the Malikis, too, Sufism was popular. Al-Sawi, al-Dardir, al-Laqqani and Abd al-Wahhab al-Baghdadi were all exponents of Sufism. The Maliki jurist of Cairo, Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha'rani defines Sufism as follows:
'The path of the Sufis is built on the Quran and the Sunna, and is based on living according to the morals of the prophets and the purified ones. It may not be blamed, unless it violates an explicit statement from the Quran, sunna, or ijma. If it does not contravene any of these sources, then no pretext remains for condemning it, except one's own low opinion of others, or interpreting what they do as ostentation, which is unlawful. No-one denies the states of the Sufis except someone ignorant of the way they are.'[11]
For Hanbali Sufism one has to look no further than the revered figures of Abdallah Ansari, Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, Ibn al-Jawzi, and Ibn Rajab.
In fact, virtually all the great luminaries of medieval Islam: al-Suyuti, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, al-Ayni, Ibn Khaldun, al-Subki, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami; tafsir writers like Baydawi, al-Sawi, Abu'l-Su'ud, al-Baghawi, and Ibn Kathir[12] ; aqida writers such as Taftazani, al-Nasafi, al-Razi: all wrote in support of Sufism. Many, indeed, composed independent works of Sufi inspiration. The ulema of the great dynasties of Islamic history, including the Ottomans and the Moghuls, were deeply infused with the Sufi outlook, regarding it as one of the most central and indispensable of Islamic sciences.
Further confirmation of the Islamic legitimacy of Sufism is supplied by the enthusiasm of its exponents for carrying Islam beyond the boundaries of the Islamic world. The Islamization process in India, Black Africa, and South-East Asia was carried out largely at the hands of wandering Sufi teachers. Likewise, the Islamic obligation of jihad has been borne with especial zeal by the Sufi orders. All the great nineteenth century jihadists: Uthman dan Fodio (Hausaland), al-Sanousi (Libya), Abd al-Qadir al-Jaza'iri (Algeria), Imam Shamil (Daghestan) and the leaders of the Padre Rebellion (Sumatra) were active practitioners of Sufism, writing extensively on it while on their campaigns. Nothing is further from reality, in fact, than the claim that Sufism represents a quietist and non-militant form of Islam.
With all this, we confront a paradox. Why is it, if Sufism has been so respected a part of Muslim intellectual and political life throughout our history, that there are, nowadays, angry voices raised against it? There are two fundamental reasons here.
Firstly, there is again the pervasive influence of Orientalist scholarship, which, at least before 1922 when Massignon wrote his Essai sur les origines de la lexique technique, was of the opinion that something so fertile and profound as Sufism could never have grown from the essentially 'barren and legalistic' soil of Islam. Orientalist works translated into Muslim languages were influential upon key Muslim modernists - such as Muhammad Abduh in his later writings - who began to question the centrality, or even the legitimacy, of Sufi discourse in Islam.
Secondly, there is the emergence of the Wahhabi da'wa. When Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, some two hundred years ago, teamed up with the Saudi tribe and attacked the neighbouring clans, he was doing so under the sign of an essentially neo-Kharijite version of Islam. Although he invoked Ibn Taymiya, he had reservations even about him. For Ibn Taymiya himself, although critical of the excesses of certain Sufi groups, had been committed to a branch of mainstream Sufism. This is clear, for instance, in Ibn Taymiya's work Sharh Futuh al-Ghayb, a commentary on some technical points in the Revelations of the Unseen, a key work by the sixth-century saint of Baghdad, Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani. Throughout the work Ibn Taymiya shows himself to be a loyal disciple of al-Jilani, whom he always refers to as shaykhuna ('our teacher'). This Qadiri affiliation is confirmed in the later literature of the Qadiri tariqa, which records Ibn Taymiya as a key link in the silsila, the chain of transmission of Qadiri teachings.[13]
Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, however, went far beyond this. Raised in the wastelands of Najd in Central Arabia, he had little access to mainstream Muslim scholarship. In fact, when his da'wa appeared and became notorious, the scholars and muftis of the day applied to it the famous Hadith of Najd:
Ibn Umar reported the Prophet (upon whom be blessings and peace) as saying: "Oh God, bless us in our Syria; O God, bless us in our Yemen." Those present said: "And in our Najd, O Messenger of God!" but he said, "O God, bless us in our Syria; O God, bless us in our Yemen." Those present said, "And in our Najd, O Messenger of God!". Ibn Umar said that he thought that he said on the third occasion: "Earthquakes and dissensions (fitna) are there, and there shall arise the horn of the devil."[14]
And it is significant that almost uniquely among the lands of Islam, Najd has never produced scholars of any repute.
The Najd-based da'wa of the Wahhabis, however, began to be heard more loudly following the explosion of Saudi oil wealth. Many, even most, Islamic publishing houses in Cairo and Beirut are now subsidised by Wahhabi organisations, which prevent them from publishing traditional works on Sufism, and remove passages in other works considered unacceptable to Wahhabist doctrine.
The neo-Kharijite nature of Wahhabism makes it intolerant of all other forms of Islamic expression. However, because it has no coherent fiqh of its own - it rejects the orthodox madhhabs - and has only the most basic and primitively anthropomorphic aqida, it has a fluid, amoebalike tendency to produce divisions and subdivisions among those who profess it. No longer are the Islamic groups essentially united by a consistent madhhab and the Ash'ari [or Maturidi] aqida. Instead, they are all trying to derive the shari'a and the aqida from the Quran and the Sunna by themselves. The result is the appalling state of division and conflict which disfigures the modern salafi condition.
At this critical moment in our history, the umma has only one realistic hope for survival, and that is to restore the 'middle way', defined by that sophisticated classical consensus which was worked out over painful centuries of debate and scholarship. That consensus alone has the demonstrable ability to provide a basis for unity. But it can only be retrieved when we improve the state of our hearts, and fill them with the Islamic virtues of affection, respect, tolerance and reconciliation. This inner reform, which is the traditional competence of Sufism, is a precondition for the restoration of unity in the Islamic movement. The alternative is likely to be continued, and agonising, failure.
_______________________________
NOTES
1. Sura 13:11.
2. For a further analysis of this passage, see Habib Ahmad Mashhur al-Haddad, Key to the Garden (Quilliam Press, London 1990 CE), 78-81.
3. Sura 26:89. The archetype is Abrahamic: see Sura 37:84.
4. This hadith is in fact an instance of takhsis al-amm: a frequent procedure of usul al-fiqh by which an apparently unqualified statement is qualified to avoid the contradiction of another necessary principle. See Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, tr. Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Abu Dhabi, 1991 CE), 907-8 for some further examples.
5. Ibn Asakir, Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (Damascus, 1347), 97.
6. Cited in Muhammad al-Jurdani, al-Jawahir al-lu'lu'iyya fi sharh al-Arba'in al-Nawawiya (Damascus, 1328), 220-1.
7. 17:85.
8. 79:40.
9. al-Qushayri, al-Risala (Cairo, n.d.), I, 393.
10. al-Zabidi, Ithaf al-sada al-muttaqin (Cairo, 1311), I, 27.
11. Sha'rani, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra (Cairo, 1374), I, 4.
12. It is true that Ibn Kathir in his Bidaya is critical of some later Sufis. Nonetheless, in his Mawlid, which he asked his pupils to recite on the occasion of the Blessed Prophet's birthday each year, he makes his personal debt to a conservative and sober Sufism quite clear.
13. See G. Makdisi's article 'Ibn Taymiyya: A Sufi of the Qadiriya Order' in the American Journal of Arabic Studies, 1973.
14. Narrated by Bukhari. The translation is from J. Robson, Mishkat al-Masabih (Lahore, 1970), II, 1380.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Lakbima Again Srikes Muslim- Pasting Terrorist Label to Innocent Muslims of Sri Lanka
Lakbima Again Srikes Muslim- Pasting Terrorist Label to Innocent Muclims of Sri Lanka
Armed Muslim groups to handover weapons by July 2
By Gayana Kumara Weerasinghe
Last week, this newspaper revealed that after the defeat of the LTTE, the security forces are now preparing to disarm armed Muslim extremist groups now raising their heads in the Eastern Province. Security forces are of the view that these armed extremist groups will be the next terrorist threat to be faced by Sri Lanka and the terrorism unleashed by these groups maybe far more brutal than that of the LTTE.
According to information received by military intelligence, a large number of armed Muslim extremist groups are at present operating secretly in the Eastern Province. The more prominent of these groups are known by names such as Jihad, Osama and Mujahib. In addition, there are also some armed extremist groups operating in the East which use the names of certain prominent politicians and are being sponsored by these same politicians of the Eastern Province.
Underworld connections
These groups operate in areas in the Eastern Province which have a large Muslim populus. The areas include Eravur, Kaththankudi, Oluvamavadi, Sammanturai, Akkaraipattu, Kalmunai Panama, Muttur and Kinniya.
Intelligence agencies also say that another armed group which has the blessings and support of these extremists groups is operating in Puttalam, led by a politician.
Security forces also now have evidence that certain underworld gangs operating in Colombo also maintain connections with the armed Muslim extremist groups in the East. Muslim underworld groups in the Maligawatta and Slave Island areas received most of their weapons from the extremist groups in the province.
On information from intelligence agencies that there was a possibility of these armed Muslim extremist groups organizing and rebelling together, the security forces attention has turned to them with a vigour never seen before.
The arrest of 7 persons with a large haul of weapons belonging to armed extremist groups by the Kaththankudi police confirms this situation. The haul included 7 T56 weapons, 1 LLR firearm, 3 hand grenades, 1 anti-personal mine and a walkie-talkie.
During police questioning, the suspects said that 200-250 persons were members of armed Muslim extremist groups in the Kaththankudi area possessing an assortment of weapons handed over to them by the LTTE whilst retreating from the East. Some were sold to them. The Muslim extremists had bought T56 weapons for less than Rs 5000 per firearm.
When one time LTTE commander and current government Minister Vinayagamoorthi Muralitharan alias Karuna Amman broke away from the LTTE, members of these groups received weapons from cadres who broke away with him.
“The Muslims armed themselves due to the suffering they underwent at the hands of the LTTE, not to oppose the government or to carve out a separate state. Some politicians started to use these groups to further their own political agendas. This is why armed Muslim extremist groups have now raised their heads in the Eastern Province. If Muslims continue to bear weapons, they will be a threat to national security. We need to disarm them,” said an intelligence officer who is tracking these armed Muslim groups. Significantly, this officer is himself a Muslim.
According to him only one Muslim armed group -Jihad- operated in the Eastern Province in the beginning. “Jihad started its operations on a small scale during the late 80s and became more powerful during the period 90-94 with the blessings of a prominent Muslim politician. During this period, Muslim youth from the Eastern Province travelled to Afghanistan and Arab countries and obtained weapons training. In addition a large number of retired Muslim military and police officers also joined Jihad and helped it become powerful, and the group directly functioned via a number of mosques in the East.
The Indian army arrived in Sri Lanka and established a 7000 strong Tamil army in the Eastern Province. The EPRLF, led by Varadaraja Perumal was also part of this Tamil army. They had large stocks of military weapons. This Tamil army also broke apart when the Indian army left Sri Lanka’s shores. Most of their weapons fell into the hands of the Jihad which operated against the LTTE. The group never threatened the maintaining of law and order. However, the situation is drastically different now. There are currently 13 armed Muslim extremist groups operating in the East verified by intelligence reports.” said the intelligence officer
Survival
Muslim politicians. maintain these armed groups for their survival. Some groups are said to be maintained by Muslim businessmen and Hajiars in the East. Security forces have received information that they are maintaining these groups with the aim of furthering their businesses. However, that does not mean that they don’t engage in contract killings and armed robberies once in a while.
Batticaloa DIG Edwin Gunathilaka was entrusted with the task of disarming such Muslim extremist groups. DIG Gunathilaka was also at the forefront of the campaign to disarm the Karuna and Pillayan factions which broke away from the LTTE. He had also made a significant contribution to disarm the Sinhala armed groups which were active in the South during the 88-89 reign of terror.
Accordingly, the DIG commenced the task by convening meetings involving highly respected personalities in the Muslim community including Muslim politicians, VIPs, Hajiars and Muslim religious leaders. He explained to them the dangers of armed extremism. One such special meeting was organized at the Hisbullah cultural centre in Kaththankudi Baticaloa on the evening of the 19th. Security forces Commander in the East, Major General Srinath Rajapaksa, Head of Operations of the STF, DIG R.W.M. Ranawana and a large number of senior army and police officers were also present on the occasion. Over 300 representatives of the Muslim community attended the meeting.
During his speech at the meeting, DIG Gunathilaka also issued a warning, stating that if armed groups do not take steps to hand over their weapons to the security forces, then he will be reluctantly compelled to take stern action against them. The warning vaguely alluded to certain persons present who are known to back these armed groups.
At the end of the meeting, the Muslim community urged that an amnesty period be declared for armed Muslim groups to hand over their weapons. They assured that arrangements will be made towards this end and implored the security forces not to take any action until this had been done.
Security forces officers, including DIG Edwin Gunathilaka agreed to this request. Accordingly, an amnesty was declared for Muslim armed groups to hand over their weapons. This amnesty period will continue upto 2 July. Security sources reveal that several armed Muslim groups are set to hand over their weapons at a mosque in the East on that same day. Security forces are already formulating plans to conduct operations against all Muslim armed groups which do not hand over their weapons by this date.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Lakbima Again strikes Muslim by twisting News
Lakbima Strikes Muslims By spinning News
Crackdown Jihad
Response from Web
This report for me looks as if the seeds of hostility between muslims and the Sinhalese community are being sowed. Who will believe that Saudi is funding the Tableegh Jamaat, when they are ideologically different. This is a plain LIE.
A few people who possess guns and have a muslim name DO NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY of the muslims in Sri Lanka. If the government is disarming them it is good - BUT WHY should this report put a twist and spin to it. It seems that among the Sinhalese there are enemies of the Sinhalese.
The President of Sri Lanka has been unequivocal in his noble statement that there are no minorities in Sri Lanka - ONLY THOSE WHO LOVE THE COUNTRY AND THOSE WHO DO NOT. We must keep repeating this great thought everywhere and to everyone - be it to a muslim, sinhalese, tamil, burgher etc.
I believe, all Sri Lankan muslims must rally behind this noble statement of the President and ensure that the President's noble thought is carried forward.
It would be helpful if some form of positive action is taken on a continuing basis by Muslim organisations in co-ordination with the Sinhalese brothers/sisters to stem such attempts by the enemies of Sri Lanka, the enemies of Sinhalese and Tamils, the enemies of the Muslims and the enemies of a peace loving Sri Lanka.
As Muslims we have to stand up for justice even if it is against a Muslim. We should always support truth and justice. This is what the Quran and the Prophet Muhamed (PBUH) has taught us.
Muslim thinkers, social workers, organisations etc may please consider my viewpoint and create a forum along with our sinhalese brothers/sisters to monitor such unpatriotic activities in the guise of patriotism.
Crackdown Jihad
Response from Web
This report for me looks as if the seeds of hostility between muslims and the Sinhalese community are being sowed. Who will believe that Saudi is funding the Tableegh Jamaat, when they are ideologically different. This is a plain LIE.
A few people who possess guns and have a muslim name DO NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY of the muslims in Sri Lanka. If the government is disarming them it is good - BUT WHY should this report put a twist and spin to it. It seems that among the Sinhalese there are enemies of the Sinhalese.
The President of Sri Lanka has been unequivocal in his noble statement that there are no minorities in Sri Lanka - ONLY THOSE WHO LOVE THE COUNTRY AND THOSE WHO DO NOT. We must keep repeating this great thought everywhere and to everyone - be it to a muslim, sinhalese, tamil, burgher etc.
I believe, all Sri Lankan muslims must rally behind this noble statement of the President and ensure that the President's noble thought is carried forward.
It would be helpful if some form of positive action is taken on a continuing basis by Muslim organisations in co-ordination with the Sinhalese brothers/sisters to stem such attempts by the enemies of Sri Lanka, the enemies of Sinhalese and Tamils, the enemies of the Muslims and the enemies of a peace loving Sri Lanka.
As Muslims we have to stand up for justice even if it is against a Muslim. We should always support truth and justice. This is what the Quran and the Prophet Muhamed (PBUH) has taught us.
Muslim thinkers, social workers, organisations etc may please consider my viewpoint and create a forum along with our sinhalese brothers/sisters to monitor such unpatriotic activities in the guise of patriotism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)